roachboy,
First, an apology, because at this moment I only have time (and energy) to pick out two points of your long post (which has much excellent material in it, btw).
Quote:
...if this process unfolds along the lines set out already, the nation-state will become increasingly obsolete.
their ideology will collapse well before the nation-state does: the writing is on the wall.
|
While I agree with your point, I'm not ready to assign the nation-state to obsolescence. I think that the nation-state
as it currently exists will be pushed out of the way in a globalized world. I'm not ruling out the nation-state responding to these environmental pressure by evolving new functions or a new operating space.
My second point from your post is in regard to republican/democrat ideology and support for globalization. My memory is hazy on this time period (because it is in the cracks between adult experience and history, due to my age), but NAFTA was being debated in the 1992 election, right? I thought Clinton was for it and Bush I was against it, but I could be wrong, in addition to skipping over a whole ton of nuance. Where did Perot stand? I get the feeling that you are claiming that you think the Republicans have a problem with globalization that isn't wrapped up in nationalistic ideals as well... Could you clarify that are a little for me, please?
I do know one thing, which I probably harped on in my first post in this thread: globalization is like gravity - you can dislike its effects, but there is no point in being against it. It is simply the system by which the world is learning to function. Speaking of which, one of the first things you mention is the phenomenon of power being controlled by trans-national entities (corporations and conglomerates). As I said above, this can only diminish the efficacy, if not the very role, of nation-states in global power and economics. Do you think it could also be the avenue through which the WTO, IMF, and UN could become true world-governing institutions? I think this is at least a possibility to be considered.
Quote:
|
the underlying argument is that one of the main achievements within capitalism over its earlier phases (up to about 1970) was that organized citizens were able to force changes into the nature and role of the state
|
This is one place I might quote Friedman to you again: I believe that his analysis of the world's major players is concise and accurate. Superpowers, Supermarkets, and Super-empowered individuals are all thrust into positions of influence by the world's level of connectivity. Although he's no role model, bin Laden is an example of what a super-empowered angry man can do - he has managed to affect the timbre of international relations. Of course, his message seems to be a dead-end, in that he has no viable alternative to the current state of world affairs, only anger at it. And it is also true that his most effective time was that which he spent having free reign in a nation-state (Afghanistan). It is my belief that as people learn to use our new level of connectivity, individuals will find more productive ways to express the anger and super-empowerment. However, even in the short term, I wouldn't count the little guys out of the game - it was essentially a group of bloggers that caused the ouster of Dan Rather. 10 years ago, you know CBS would have scoffed at the idea of moonlighters and amatures sparking a debate that would lead to such major changes...
I'll come back to this post later - there were many good ideas in it to chew on.