So the term "globalization" obscures more than it reveals? but can we say
anything different about the term "monopoly capitalism" or "late
capitalism" or "finance capital" or "social structure of accumulation"
(pick your poison)? can we say anything different about the word
"capitalism"? In a lot of discourse, those terms are full of BS.
Sure, those who use the term "globalization" should be very clear what they
mean by it. But the same should be said of the users of the other terms.
The fact is that "globalization" is an abstraction. All abstractions
simplify -- i.e., distort, obscure -- reality. We hope that they also
reveal more than they obscure, which is why we insist on clear, coherent,
abstractions, ones that don't abstract from the empirically important
aspects of life. The problem is that such abstractions are a necessary part
of understanding the world.
I don't quite get why Doug lashed out at the word. There was a paraphrase
from a BUSINESS WEEK article in Dave R's daily summary of BLS news. Tom K.
asks: how can this be? what does this mean? But Doug responds by attacking
a word that wasn't used in the BW snippet. And the BW snippet might be a
counter-example against some people's conception of globalization (say,
Stanley Aronowitz's) but not others (say, mine). It doesn't seem reasonable
to launch a root-and-branch attack on the concept unless we're clear whose
usage is under attack.
Instead of simply attacking the concept, it'd be nice if Doug could present
his alternative. Sure, "globalization" as commonly used has a large dose of
globaloney. But since the human use of theories to understand empirical
reality is an inescapable fact of life, the only way to beat a bad theory
is to present a better one.
One alternative (one that I like more and more) is that that
"globalization" is just one part of the larger trend of the development of
the "Universal Market" (to use Harry Braverman's phrase), a development
which is partly the result of the neo-liberal campaign, which itself is
simply a form of class struggle by the capitalists. (Part of globalization
is the development of a world capitalist class, BTW, with more and more of
a unified program, neo-liberalism.) Absent serious opposition from the good
folks, in the limit this trend is toward market totalitarianism. Under that
system we'll all _volunteer_ to have swoosh tattoos. (This is very much in
the tradition of the Frankfurt School or Marcuse, without the assumption of
inevitabilty. It also allows the use of the word "globalization" to make
things more understandable.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
