From: "Marcus Strom" <MSTROM-AT-nswtf.org.au>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Date:          Tue, 19 Mar 1996 10:37:35 GMT+10
Subject:       Re: New Book on Globalization


Adam

I wanted to let you know that I agree with everything you have 
written in this post. It displays a good understanding of the complex 
relations between the continued internationalisation of capital (my 
preferred term over 'globalisation') and its <increased> reliance on 
the nation state for control of labour and this relationship with 
bourgeois ideology.

It was a breath of fresh air on the list. It is so full of crap 
lately that I have been considering leaving. I now delete almost ALL 
the posts of a morning.

Cheers

Marcus

> 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
> Reply-to:      marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

> 
> 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 ---
> 


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