Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 10:22:02 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: New Book on Globalization



Ken Hanly writes :
> 
> I just stayed up all night to finish reading a book by Gary Teeple
> GLOBALIZATION AND THE DECLINE OF SOCIAL REFORM (1995, Garamond Press
> in Canada and Humanities Press International in the US.) I think that this is an
> excellent Marxsist analysis of the way in which globalization of capital 
> has given rise to neo-liberal policies and undercut the gains achieved
> by the working class and is causing the dismantling of the welfare state. 
> Has anyone else any opinions on this book. This is the first book I have
> seen that gives a clear and cogent analysis of the manner in which 
> globalization is associated with neo-liberalism, dismantling the welfare
> system, destroying union power, privatization, and increasing powerlessness
> of social democratic parties. Has anyone else good sources for this topic.
> (Actually Teeple has lots of references that are helpful) 
>  CHeers, Ken Hanly
> 

This is an important point to make.

"Globalisation" is the theory which justifies reformists, not
only not reforming anything, but actually attacking the
reforms previous generations of reformists have brought in.

The first point to make is that reformists will use any ideology
which comes to hand to justify themselves. Really, "Globalisation"
is only an internationalist tainted way of saying "the market" ,
and is nothing new at all. Marx talked about it in 1848, so 
quite why reformists have only just discovered it I don't know.
As is always the case when workers confront the market, they
can either compete to offer the lowest possible wages and
working conditions to prospective employers, or they can
fight for the best possible conditions and support other
workers who do the same, of whatever nationality.

The Liverpool dockers shows both strategies being persued
simultaneously, with the British T+G giving them less
support than US dockers unions.


The second point to make is that Marxists have always seen increased
interpentration of state + capital as a trend which is the flip
side of internationalisation of markets, ever since Lenin's "Imperialism :
the highest stage of capitalism" which starts with a long empirical
explanation of how the market has expanded internationally. This remains
true today. Multi national companies are reliant on states for
a legal system, an education system, infrastructure, and of course
"armed bodies of men". This is MORE true today than ever, not less.
So even in capitalist terms, the "globalisation" theory is flawed.


The "pacific tigers" are a good illustration of this : the state has
intervened regularly, merging companies if neccessary. There are
quite high tax rates, sometimes hidden in the form of compulsory
savings. Also, ironically, just as reformists in the older advanced
countries are using these countries to justify attacks on the welfare
state, the workers in those countries are demanding precisely the 
higher standards of living that workers in the older countries are
fighting to maintain. Also, the ruling classes in those countries,
like anywhere else, understand the need for a healthy, educated
workforce, and are frightened of its potential power. In this
respect, I can quite understand why it is that these people never
talk about South Korea, with its violent confrontations between
worker,students, and the state.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---