Re: empire & globalization, was... Re: AUT: Re: autonomist crisis theory

["davback" <davback@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi y'all

A few thoughts on this, FWIW:

1) In some ways capitalism has always functioned at an international level
(e.g. the deindustrialisation of India and the slave trade in development of
British capitalism).  So wihle there have been historical variations in the
extent of the intenrational orientation, as compared to domestic
(protectionism, etc.) I'm a bit uneasy with the formulation below becauses
it seems to suggest phases just alternate with no great change (i.e. either
donmestic/inward or global).

> > Capitalism
> > has been a world-system for quite some time but its
> > characterized by periods of capitalists within
> > particular nation-states focusing on home markets,
> > and
> > periods of imperialism where capitalists look to
> > expand their global reach. Current globalization is
> > not the first time capitalists have looked beyond
> > domestic markets for production and buyers of their
> > commodities.

2) On the other hand, while I agree there has been a conscious development
by the bourgeoisie TOWARDS (in effect) a global ruling class and state,
particularly since WW2,  which has reached a new level over the past decade
or so.  It still seems to me that Nation states and ruling classes are
significant and in rivalry - Not least over the potentially huge markets and
resources to be exploited in the former Stalinist bloc.

So I've also trouble with Commie00's formulation that:
>
> so, basically: imperialism has ended as such. and,
> like in empire, perhaps all seemingly imperialist
> struggles are now imperial struggles. with no center,
> no national ruling class on top.
>

I'd appreciate clarification of the distinction between imperialist and
imperial struggles.  But doesn't the current controversy over bombing of
Iran suggest that:
(a) There is national ruling class on top- the US, and
(b) The bourgeoisie in other countries do have and do prusue their own,
sometimes divergent, interests - albeit within a global framework they are
careful not to upset

3) Last Point: as it's put the point of Commie00's below is very misleading:

> we do have an activity called globalization...
> but it's the globalization of the ruling class.


Surely if the bourgeoisie are globalising they cannot help but develop a
global working class?  How far that has reached is debatable but it seems to
me there's plenty of evidence of it happening.  (Even the stuff on this list
the other day about putting 'sweatshop' on Nike trainers!)   One question
which might follow is does (bourgeois) globalisation lead to/give rise to
proletarian internationalism?

Cheers

Dave


----- Original Message -----
From: commie zero zero <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 4:20 AM
Subject: empire & globalization, was... Re: AUT: Re: autonomist crisis
theory


> > I agree with everything you've said, I guess the
> > exact
> > example I was thinking of is globalization.
>
> i'm sure this has been said a million times, but i
> want to hear some folks thoughts on it...
>
> been thinking a lot lately about how "globalization"
> is, of course, not about the globalization of
> capitalism, but the internationalization of the ruling
> class.
>
> following on empire, i went back and read documents
> from bretton woods, read the gatt document, etc. etc.
> and what i think is going on is that the ruling class
> (esp in the west) has been a completely non-national
> entity since at least the 50s, if not really before.
>
> the league of nations (then the un) seems to me to
> have been the base attempt to create an international
> state (thus an international voice and will of an
> international ruling class), which was solidified by
> gatt, and thus the imf, wb, and now the wto.
>
> that is: with the fall of the warsaw pact, and the
> integration of large chunks of the formally
> state-capitalist ruling class into the western ruling
> class, we do have an activity called globalization...
> but it's the globalization of the ruling class.
>
> so, basically: imperialism has ended as such. and,
> like in empire, perhaps all seemingly imperialist
> struggles are now imperial struggles. with no center,
> no national ruling class on top.
>
> thoughts?
>
> =====
> commie00
> ---------------------------------
> http://www.geocities.com/commie00
> ---------------------------------
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices!
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---