Globalization Minus Power
The past two centuries great theoreticians came up with ideas and ideologies about what is happening in society and where it would lead to. Three among them were in my opinion - taking my level of knowledge in account - the most significant: Weber, Marx and Bakunin.
Max Weber, known as the founder of German sociology, is the theorist of power. In his writings he explicitly differentiates between power ("Macht"), as the ability to force other individuals to something, and domination ("Herrschaft"), the institutional rule over the a specific territory and its people legitimated by tradition, legal authority or charisma. As one can read in Weber's writings authority is just, as long as it stays legitimate and bound to a certain area. For him the most eminent case for research therefore is the nation state ("Nationalstaat"). Weber's ideal is the rational behaviour of the state bureaucracy.
In contrast to Weber there is Karl Marx, a theorist of struggles; struggles between two classes in society. Benefiting of the approaches made by Weber, Marx recognizes the significance of the nation state, but doesn't stop there. He takes his theory several steps forward to the global arena. He refers to the interdependence of the states on the globe and therefore internationalises his class struggle and sociology as a whole for the first time. The fate of capitalism shall not be limited to England. Nevertheless, for Marx the nation state stays the frame of reference. In detail we see that the global character of his theories can sometimes be narrowed down to concept of inside and outside the nation state.
As Weber is talking about the just exercise of power, or better authority, Marx is about gaining it, even though Marx isn't explicitly writing on power nor authority. He introduces terms like mode of production ("Produktionsweise"), which refer to the power constellation within a society and how it is reproduced and organised. Weber says that the authority held by the state bureaucracy shall be devoted to the benefit of the state and therefore its people. Of course he has no efficient tool to offer, which could possibly ensure a just and right leadership by the bureaucracy. In opposition to that Marx wants to put the power in the hand of the proletariat, the working class and everybody who is willing to join. Through revolution a communist party shall take the power and lead towards communism, via socialism. Until than the party of the proletariat shall reign. We shall learn that the introduction of this "middleman" didn't lead to the communistic utopia but to the breakdown of almost all communist regimes.
Considering that both theorists are somewhat theorists of authority, there seems to be a major flaw, if history will tell us at some time, that the existence of authority was the major reason for injustice. History could even tell us that authority might not be the ultimate goal. Until now, history was the history of struggles for power and authority. Kings fought wars for power over territories and resources. Peoples fought revolutions for power over their own land. Transnational companies gained economic power. Mainstream social, historic and economic sciences tell us, that it was all about power, and it always will be.
In opposition to Weber and Marx there is Mikhail Bakunin, the theorist of the absence of power, the founder of anarchism. Bakunin's ideas on society can be seen as Marxist as long as we take out the establishment of a communist party. The critique of the mode of production and the circumstances in which the proletarian has to work and live is quite similar to what Marx was stating at the same time. The opposition towards Marx becomes quite clear when Bakunin's concept on the state is considered. He just doesn't consider any reasonable significance of the state besides abolishing it. Bakunin understands any authority whether forced or legitimated as an unnecessary privilege and therefore as the lack of total liberty. Because once a person or class is privileged "it is the peculiarity of privilege and of every privileged position to kill the intellect and heart of man. The privileged man, whether he be privileged politically or economically, is a man depraved in intellect and heart." (Bakunin, 1882)
Considering Marx and Bakunin, both communist, anarchists would classify Marx authoritarian and Bakunin libertarian, because of the difference in acknowledging the state, its power and the people. Bakunin understands the state as an instrument to repress its people. One could call him a true internationalist for he neglects the greatest barrier between the peoples of the world, the nation state. Besides this, Bakunin and Marx are communists whose goal is the emancipation of society and its individuals. Because of the relation towards Marxist theory, anarchism is often called by its present protagonists "Libertarian Socialism". Libertarian socialists support the idea, that the common good should be managed, in a way in which the individual liberty is preserved and the concentration of power or authority avoided.
Looking at the anti-globalisation movement as a movement against authorities like transnational companies and governements that miss the expectation of the voters by far, the theories and ideas around Bakunin and his successors might become more interesting. Demonstrators, which went out for peace demonstrations or against Worldbank meetings are not against globalization as an inter-cultural exchange. They strongly feel ruled over but not governed for.
---
Sociology course "Power and Globalisation" by Johannes Angermüller
Marian Dörk, May 2003
