Re: Newcomer From Turkey

[dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx (Doug Henwood)]

At 6:42 PM 4/24/96, Zeynep Tufekcioglu wrote:

>1- The role of the state (I tend to think that the globalisation jargon,
>while obviously referring to a very real trend, means the very crucial role
>of the state -not just in 'policing'- is underestimated). The state,
>especially in third world countries has sprung up, not after, but before the
>class alignments had matured which meant that the state was involved in
>creating many of the dynamics, which was to later influence it. (Obviously,
>this was possible because capitalism/imperialism was advanced enough). So,
>the discussion is to analyse the continuing role of the state, during an era
>of financial movements beyond the control of a singular state, and
>multi-nationals. (Multi-national; the difference between operating in many
>nations and being indifferent/exempt to national interests is, I think,
>overlooked. Who fights on behalf of Sony, Toyota, General Motors, IBM,
>Boeing, Thysen, Daimler-Benz etc. in the world markets.)

This is very important, and very well put too. There's entirely too much
casual talk about globalization and the eclipse of the nation-state. Yes,
financial capital moves easily across borders, but the relation between
finance and the real is far from simple. A lot of the talk about
globalization has had the effect of disarming progressive political forces,
who feel powerless before the monster.

I don't know if I posted this excerpt from Lawrence Summers infamous memo
(in which he argued that "Africa is vastly underpolluted), written to his
then-colleagues at the World Bank when he was the Bank's chief economist.
Summers is now the chief official on international affairs at the U.S.
Treasury. Summers is as smart as bourgeois economists come, and he never
says stuff like this in public.

Lawrence Summers, from his December 12, 1991, memo, leaked to the press. He
was commenting on the draft of the World Bank's Global Economic Prospects
and the Developing Nations:
>
>Alfred
>Chandler has a book (Scale and Scope) on the development of modern
>industrial capitalism from (roughly) 1880-1920 in which he argues the most
>important factors for firms' success were capturing economies of scale (in
>R&D and production) and scope (marketing). What's new? Throughout the
>outline I struggle with the evidence showing *what* exactly the proclaimed
>revolution has revolutionized. FDI has always existed and many of the
>world's largest firms have been transnational from birth. The
>"globalization" of production has happened sure, but has the
>telecommunications revolution really had a major impact? I would guess the
>invention of relatively simple things, like steamship transport, did more
>for world trade than digitalized data transmission through fiber optic
>cables. How exactly has the nature of manufacturing been "fundamentally
>altered"? Aren't people just incrementally better at doing things they've
>always done, like locate production in the lowest cost location for
>delivery to markets (now "globalization of production"), like manage
>inventories in a least cost way (now "just-in-time inventory management"),
>like choose the appropriate level of vertical integration depending on the
>production process (now "critical buyer-seller links"), like match
>production to demand (now "short product cycles"). Is a "revolution really
>the appropriate metaphor for these changes? I think the detailed evidence
>from the US about the very small impact on productivity from the large
>investment in information technology should convince us to hold off on the
>breathless tone about technology.

Doug

--

Doug Henwood
Left Business Observer
250 W 85 St
New York NY 10024-3217
USA
+1-212-874-4020 voice
+1-212-874-3137 fax
email: <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---