Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ok--i am a bit pressed for time today so will only respond with bulletpoint like things.
a. the outcome of the processes that folk group together as globalization will not lead to anything approaching socialism (a stand-in for the problematic notion of "communist utopia on the one hand and a confusing terminology blur on the other) because there simply is at this point no coherent left opposition at the level of politics/ideology. revolution do not simply happen--they are shaped by ideology/politics/a revolutionary line--at this point, the mobilized radical forces out there are mostly from the extreme/neofascist right. this for historical reasons, mostly to do with the collapse of marxism as a mobilizing tool (as over against the slower devolution of nationalist ideologies in a radical form). in a way this is intuitive (1989 anyone?)....
|
I can't really disagree with anthing here, but would like a clarification on what you mean by "left" and "right". If it's what I believe it is (which I won't say now, because I'm not sure how exactly I would articulate it), I don't see how there can be "left" opposition, simply because the very process of organization will take the principles more toward a "rightist" ideology because:
1. Rightist ideology relies heavily upon rigid hierarchy and control structures.
2. Human nature would assert itself, and in the absence of any centralized power structure someone would work to take advange of the power vacuum and seize control (as happened in soviet Russia, where Marxism became Leninism and evolved further into Stalinism)
Quote:
|
b. the question of nationalism as a pattern for identity formation and nationalism as mobilizer are different--they lean on each other but are not idenitical to each other for all that. one argument is that movements like the american conservatives in their contemporary form are reactions against the erosion of the nation as a stable frame for elaborating a sense of connectedness to wider communities--this a function of the creeping sense that, for example, there is little the nation-state can or will do to deal with the implications of the transformation in how production is organized.
|
I think here it would help to see how the democratic/liberal movement in America fits into the picture. It might better give a stable platform of reference.
For instance, it seems that the democrats are doing more to counteract the growing loss of power of nations' ability to control production.
Quote:
|
c. i do not see the contemporary right as being a direct instrument of corporate power. it is much more a curious populist movement that espouses an ideology that in certain areas is of a piece with corporate interests. in most areas, though, i think it is as much geared around the interests of conservative politicians themselves.
|
I think most ideologies espoused by politicians are in some way or another geared around the interests of said politicians.
Quote:
|
in general, one place where the two converge is across the process of privatization--which you can also see as a process of depoliticization. the main effect of privatizing sectors is not higher efficiency but the removal of that sector from political conflict because it is a withdrawing of the state. the underlying argument here is that what the state does, what it intervenes in, is necessarily political. in a situation of heightened uncertainty, the state can reduce its risk by privatization. and globalizing capitalism is nothing if not a generator of heightened uncertainty for the state.
|
I think personally that in a situation were the state to feel threatened, it would try to assume as much control as possible, as opposed to trying to reduce risks. Because even if they abandon ship in economic affairs, that very act doesn't leave the state as a whole unit, it becomes much like a shadow and loses much of the functionality/control that is inherent.
Quote:
the last point you make is, i think, one of the central points of conflict within this whole scenario. maybe it would make sense ot have a look through the website of one of the more interesting (yet peculiar) anti-globalization movements--attac
www.attac.fr
there is an english language version.
there should still be a number of position papers generated by attac that explain the problems facing not only the nation-state but even more political mobilizations that try to address the dynamics of globalizing capitalism from within nation-states....the other problem they (and mnay others) have run into is that if you cannot simply organize at the national level to pressure changes in policy/direction, and find yourself trying to mobilize against these bigger processes, who do you go after? how do you do that? this is the most basic problem facing these movements in general at the moment.
|
What do you think of Attac and their goals? I read some of their opinions and their charter, and it seemed interesting at least. And I also recommend anyone with interest to at least skim the site. It also seems that they've given up on America and the English speaking world in general-the English site I found hadn't been updated in around a year, while the French and German versions I noticed were very recently updated.
I think that one of the problems that these organizations have is that their approach is wrong. They cannot work well in most gov't systems because they end up simultaneously argue for less "freedom" economically but more "freedom" in political/social issues. I don't see this as being possible-if you want the state to have the power to regulate trade, it must also inherently have the power to regulate in the other areas.
Quote:
at this point, i have to stop.
one thing i am not sure of: the analytic backdrop for most of what i am talking about comes from books, often really fat books. i dont know about whether it makes sense to talk directly about them in this context. maybe refer to them? because a problem may end up being that we are simply not working from the same frame of reference, and that modulating a discussion might require modulating the frame. in which case, the thread could involve generation of reading lists or something. what would you think of reading stuff along the way?
|
References and reading lists/reccomendations are welcome by me at least. Much of my views come from reading, but more fiction than non-fiction. My non-fiction reading is limited to mostly history or things dealing with the natural sciences (outside of textbooks and the like, of which i've read quite a few). I believe that much fiction can give just as valid viewpoints into social commentary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pacifier
But that is also a great danger, this feeling of an "outside danger" can turn an whole nation into a mindless mass (see that famous Goering quote)
Nationalism is just a form of primitive tribalism, the tribe just got bigger. The principle is still the same, we are bound together because of $obsurce_reason and the others are inferior because of $other_obsurce_reason. nationalism always has the tendency to go into a "we are better" kind of thinking, without any logical reason.
Nationalism is emotional and thus too often clouds rational und reasonable thoughts and solutions.
I hope that we will be able to make the next step, and realise that the only "tribe" that matters is the human tribe. We shouldn't need this religion like nationalism, we should work together because it makes sense. This will be hard to achieve, but I think it is worth the effort. Thats why I think the UN is good, not because it is perfect, it is far from that, but because it is an first step in the right direction.
|
Much of what you say is true, and I agree with in theory. But it breaks down in practice. As I said initially, until people move away from the belief in supremacy over each other (supremacy of any sort) it is impossible to truly come together, in the absence of some outside threat.
A nation is tribalism on one hand, but also it's a previously unknown unit of coming together. If you want to eliminate tribalism alltogether, you must work at the roots-the family. The concept of family goes hand-in-hand with tribalism and often the belief in superiority. It is also formed in response to outside threat (the basic needs for survival). And a family is nothing but a "tribe" that you feel the need to protect over other non-family individuals (who are de facto superior, due to sharing your genes). If they weren't superior, they wouldn't be protected over other individuals who aren't related. But that concept would almost be impossible to sell, so it's necessary to create ever-bigger tribes to protect the groups judged to be superior.
You mention the UN, but as I said before the UN is nothing but a forum for countries to protect their personal interests and form coalitions without need to go door-to-door to every nation.
You want to see the world come together? It would take some greater outside force threatening the world as a whole (and I've read many stories where this scenario is explored, by means of faking some outside force)