Globalisation and Society: New Right=Old Left?
Supposedly, we are all part of the “free market” now, or at least, those of us who want progress in society. But what is society, and is this the same as the globalised consumer society? Which demands another question: what is the meaning of “society” if we are all individualist consumers?
The Right have a tendency to define society with the state. So no state=no society or no society to speak of outside it. Does this mean that the Right contradict the state when they talk about free markets as, by implication, domestic markets would somehow be different or superior to foreign markets, for surely in a free market, all are equal participants? This would lead to the conclusion that there would always be inequalities when dealing in foreign trade and that individual trade between those of different cultures would require some sort of mediation by the state or an international body. These justifications were very similar to the reasoning of the German Autarkist Fichte, as well as List and others in the 19th century. Exponents of (eventual) economic self-rule, or autarky, proposed systems whereby the individual was to be removed from international trade, which was replaced by trading between governments for commodities or resources unobtainable domestically.
The Libertarian-Rightist Robert Novic gives an alternative perspective on this with his “Minarchist Utopia”. For Novic, what state there is would be a limited authority, which would, at the most, keep the peace and enforce property rights. Smaller “communes” would be concerned with the economic aspects, so, Novic assures us, people who would be dependent on social welfare could live in a socialist commune and would-be entrepreneurs could find a suitably capitalist commune.
What is lacking here is any mechanism other than migration by which one community could trade with another, although presumably one other role for the Minimal State would be the control of currency. Also, in order to have a varied economy, each commune would have to be as large as a small country. So are we forced to reverse the roles of State and Commune? Which brings us back to Globalisation.
A reversal of Novic’s Utopia would denote an uber-organisation that exists purely to promote a particular economic policy. The description of which covers both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, examples of World Governments with the authority of a latter-day Charlemagne or Napoleon over the lives and livelihoods of billions if any were needed.
What about the role of the Left in these issues?
The neo-liberals claim to represent progress, while “property hating” socialists are relegated to the past. But in reality, history often repeats itself. For example, these issues lead to major splits and jealousies in the First International, which have left a legacy in politics in Europe and beyond to this day.
Consider, was the role of the Comintern, or recurrent attempts to resurrect Trotskyism, any different in principle to the major neo-liberal organisations of today, any less accountable or their exponents any less demagogic?
Internationally, both the “Old Left” and the “New Right” have a history of attempting to impose a uniform economic order on the world. But how could this be achieved without overturning local social norms?
So what is society? As can be shown, defining society in economic terms is a bit like defining the deity: always in negatives or superlatives. So, what does “globalised society” mean, if anything, in these contexts? Or is globalisation simply anti-social?
Which brings us to Socialism.
As the Right are fond of reminding us after the collapse of the USSR, socialism “doesn’t work”. But Socialism is an ideology consisting of many, often opposing, creeds with differing attitudes towards government and state.
In terms of ownership of the means of production, socialism is when said means of production and distribution are owned in common by society as a whole or a free association of worker-producers. In a sense, this is a description of how Man has always “organised” his economic activity from prehistory. The “means of production” were the animals he hunted and the natural resources where he obtained his tools: all access to those who had the knowledge and ability to exploit them.
Modern industrialism and science have cured diseases and made our lives easier, but access to these fruits has never been harder for the vast majority of the people on this planet. The only ideological basis for the capitalist mode of production is that goods “get cheaper” and reach the “dispossessed”. But how where people dispossessed in the first place? Through institutions of state, using religious or chauvinistic notions of superiority over others. The institution of private property, aided and abetted by the state throughout the millennia, is an operation of grand larceny. A means by which a minority, remembering a minority usually end up owning most of the land in any country, are able to exploit the labour of the majority.
Supposedly, we are all part of the “free market” now, or at least, those of us who want progress in society. But what is society, and is this the same as the globalised consumer society? Which demands another question: what is the meaning of “society” if we are all individualist consumers?
The Right have a tendency to define society with the state. So no state=no society or no society to speak of outside it. Does this mean that the Right contradict the state when they talk about free markets as, by implication, domestic markets would somehow be different or superior to foreign markets, for surely in a free market, all are equal participants? This would lead to the conclusion that there would always be inequalities when dealing in foreign trade and that individual trade between those of different cultures would require some sort of mediation by the state or an international body. These justifications were very similar to the reasoning of the German Autarkist Fichte, as well as List and others in the 19th century. Exponents of (eventual) economic self-rule, or autarky, proposed systems whereby the individual was to be removed from international trade, which was replaced by trading between governments for commodities or resources unobtainable domestically.
The Libertarian-Rightist Robert Novic gives an alternative perspective on this with his “Minarchist Utopia”. For Novic, what state there is would be a limited authority, which would, at the most, keep the peace and enforce property rights. Smaller “communes” would be concerned with the economic aspects, so, Novic assures us, people who would be dependent on social welfare could live in a socialist commune and would-be entrepreneurs could find a suitably capitalist commune.
What is lacking here is any mechanism other than migration by which one community could trade with another, although presumably one other role for the Minimal State would be the control of currency. Also, in order to have a varied economy, each commune would have to be as large as a small country. So are we forced to reverse the roles of State and Commune? Which brings us back to Globalisation.
A reversal of Novic’s Utopia would denote an uber-organisation that exists purely to promote a particular economic policy. The description of which covers both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, examples of World Governments with the authority of a latter-day Charlemagne or Napoleon over the lives and livelihoods of billions if any were needed.
What about the role of the Left in these issues?
The neo-liberals claim to represent progress, while “property hating” socialists are relegated to the past. But in reality, history often repeats itself. For example, these issues lead to major splits and jealousies in the First International, which have left a legacy in politics in Europe and beyond to this day.
Consider, was the role of the Comintern, or recurrent attempts to resurrect Trotskyism, any different in principle to the major neo-liberal organisations of today, any less accountable or their exponents any less demagogic?
Internationally, both the “Old Left” and the “New Right” have a history of attempting to impose a uniform economic order on the world. But how could this be achieved without overturning local social norms?
So what is society? As can be shown, defining society in economic terms is a bit like defining the deity: always in negatives or superlatives. So, what does “globalised society” mean, if anything, in these contexts? Or is globalisation simply anti-social?
Which brings us to Socialism.
As the Right are fond of reminding us after the collapse of the USSR, socialism “doesn’t work”. But Socialism is an ideology consisting of many, often opposing, creeds with differing attitudes towards government and state.
In terms of ownership of the means of production, socialism is when said means of production and distribution are owned in common by society as a whole or a free association of worker-producers. In a sense, this is a description of how Man has always “organised” his economic activity from prehistory. The “means of production” were the animals he hunted and the natural resources where he obtained his tools: all access to those who had the knowledge and ability to exploit them.
Modern industrialism and science have cured diseases and made our lives easier, but access to these fruits has never been harder for the vast majority of the people on this planet. The only ideological basis for the capitalist mode of production is that goods “get cheaper” and reach the “dispossessed”. But how where people dispossessed in the first place? Through institutions of state, using religious or chauvinistic notions of superiority over others. The institution of private property, aided and abetted by the state throughout the millennia, is an operation of grand larceny. A means by which a minority, remembering a minority usually end up owning most of the land in any country, are able to exploit the labour of the majority.
posted by Legal Smeagol at 1:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home