I don't think anyone in Solidarity, Kim Moody included, would deny that accumulation is global, that the effects of events in all parts of the global economy have to be understood holistically, that analyses of the sort presented below about coffee and Rwanda are useful and necessary, and that the struggles of the people in the South/Third World matter, and not just because they serve as a reserve army of labor (though they do that). The idea that militant trade unionism is a good idea here in the advanced countries, and important to engage here for US radicals, doesn't seem to me inconsistent with this. Nor does the fact that globalization, though real, has limits. So the swipes at Soli--and I should say we are really more diverse in view thatn Steve suggest--are gratuitious here. Let's stick to the issues. jks
>Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:04:52 -0700 > >Charlie Post's review makes a number of excellent points in his critique of >Hardt and Negri's Empire. However, his attempt to use Kim Moody's lean >production model to explain globalization, or should I say "explain away," >globalization seems fundamentally flawed to me. It is not surprising to >see >Post attempt this approach since it is consistent with the >pseudo-syndicalist point of production view of capitalism that predominates >inside the Solidarity milieu, especially those close to the Labor Notes >organization. > >This perspective often provides helpful insights on the shortcomings of >business unionism, though it blinds the follower of this viewpoint to the >larger dynamic of global capitalism. For example, since LN and Solidarity >put huge emphasis on an attempt to revive some form of militant trade >unionism as the core of their politics, they clearly want to find that the >dynamic of global production chains is the key that can unlock our >understanding of global capitalism. > >But that leads Post into problems. For example, he mentions briefly the >masses of the developing world but only to suggest that they serve as a >reserve army of labor. Instead he thinks the key is in the core of the >accumulation process found in the most developed economies. It is >certainly >true that as one measures capital flows, most are found to go back and >forth >between Europe, Japan and the United States with some additional flows >growing up in the key peripheries around those three countries in southern >Europe, Mexico and south and southeast Asia. > >But so what? Does that mean that the billions who live outside the core >countries are irrelevant? I would argue for their relevance not on the >basis of some kind of third worldist viewpoint about the countryside >overtaking the cities (a perspective still to be found in various >anti-globalization circles among others). Rather, it is because I think >the >law of value functions at a global level. The concentration of >accumulation >in the core triad also means that the tendency of the rate of profit to >decline hits those countries as well. Thus, capital must find new sources >of surplus value. Much of it is found in greater accumulation through >technological advances, speedup, and other forms of restructuring. > >But an important source of that surplus value comes from the toil of the >billions in poor countries that is then fed into the global system. Some >of >this is obviously an extension of Post's aside about the reserve army but >the absence of any discussion about the dynamic impact of the law of value >makes me doubt that this is critical to Post's thinking or to the politics >of Solidarity and Labor Notes. Further, the problems associated with >declining profits are often solved on the backs of the masses in poor >countries. > >Sociologist David Smith has written about the impact that U.S. backing of >the coffee buyers' cartel (centered in the US) against "high" coffee prices >had on countries like Rwanda. His careful research demonstrates that the >IMF then forced the Rwandans to impose a coercive labor regime to squeeze >more production out of overworked coffee fincas to make up for lost profits >and government revenues. Hence, cheaper coffee from Rwanda helped resolve >the profit squeeze on U.S. coffee buyers. The result was a social revolt >that the government eventually suppressed through the 1994 genocide. Only >an analysis which examines the global process of value creation and >destruction in all its complexity can account for today's capitalism. >Think >about that next time you order a frappacino at the local Starbucks. > >Stephen F. Diamond >School of Law >Santa Clara University >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
