Sharing a Bed With The Beast
or Plastering Broken Bones
The so-called golden age of capitalism, the Fordist era, took place while there was one significant difference among the economic configurations of states: communistic or capitalistic. Scholars and theorists concentrated on showing on either side, that it was superior over the other. There was no need to differentiate among capitalist states, because it was necessary to set clear how advanced and successful the free world was in contrast to the "un-free" one.
After the fall of Fordism due recession in the eighties the given polito- economic doctrine was broken as well. From now on there was a severe discussion about how the "free" world should be organized to remain "fruitful" - or become fruitful again. In the context of the impact of popular movements in the sixties, it was possible to create some kind of globalization discourse that questioned the pure powers of the market - but not the market itself.
One of these discussions is called "regulation theory". It has its roots in France during the seventies. Their interest was to temporarily stabilize the contradictory economic order that is based on accumulation and exploitation. The stabilization process would represent political and legal acts of regulation. Central fields of regulation should be the relation of wage, relation of competition, restriction of capital and protection of environment. Every society can set its own agenda through defining an economic policy, which should come as close to its own norms as possible.
The "theorists of regulation" must have come up with that approach thinking, that there just isn't any alternative ready now. Certainly in these days the theory of communism wasn't really backed by reality - or at least not in a way, which made one feel comfortable with. So in the meantime - until we have found a proper way around capitalism - we would jump into the bed with the cruel exploitation monster, in the hope of receiving a goodnight kiss or something.
So the key to that dramatic situation would be the proper plan. It is commonly know that the best things or theories out there are the easy ones - taken aside maybe the theory of relativity by Einstein. So my plan would be no plan. Or at least no plan in the sense of one strict outline for a future society. I think the easiest way (for now) to handle that problem is to look at the given side. We have to examine modern capitalism and its configuration. Once we have learnt enough we may check, whether a sleep over is the right idea.
Wallerstein's "world system theory" is in my point of view a very useful way, how to understand capitalism and its processes. Instead of being bound to some ideology it is very precise and neutral in the verbalization. The main concept, which is probably the most un-questioned thesis in his theory, is that capitalism is always global, because it needs the division of labor on a trans- national scale. There are two major parts that interact within that modern world economy with each other: the core and the periphery.
At the beginning of capitalism in the late 17th century, the core states were able to produce their own agricultural goods very effectively. Therefore many people very forced to leave the countryside to work in the cities. With that emergence of a huge mass of workers colonial merchants becoming industrialists were able to use them as cheap workers in factories. In contrast to that, there were the periphery regions or states ensuring a very cheap flow of raw materials towards the core. While core states had consolidated their internal political, economic and social resources, periphery regions didn't have strong governments or were occupied by core states.
Until the middle of the 20th century core states' economy was hardly depended on agricultural but industrial production. The periphery was forced to serve as the supplier of agricultural goods and even stared producing industrial goods for the core. The core was now defined by western-northern Europe, Japan, USA and Australia. From now on the periphery was stretched from Latin America over Africa and East- and South Europe to Asia.
It hasn't changed much since then. Division of labor was taken to the extreme. Industrial and agricultural production has been outsourced to the periphery due to cheap labor. Periphery states were never given a fair chance to develop their own way of living. The ongoing exploitation of new markets and cheap labor by the core states and their corporations paved an unpleasant way of debt and death.
Wallerstein points out that the workers of the core are not necessarily in an enormous better position than the ones from the periphery. They have to take the job they get, to make a living just as the other ones have to. Of course the standard of living differs quite much, though it is easy to admit, that the workers in the core have more similarities with the workers in the periphery than with the capitalists in the core. The workers are kept in a state of insecurity everywhere.
Having recognized this situation it is not supportable to stay with a perception of the world that ends after the state ends - like the regulation theorists do. Today's economy is based on the flow of goods and services on a global scale. It is necessary to realize that the actual world system is based on economic processes resulting in a political system that we could call fascism. As we have learned on a national frame of reference, we have to accept that solidarity is the only key on an international basis, instead of competition. Call it however you want it.
---
Sociology course "Power and Globalisation" by Johannes Angermüller
Marian Dörk, June 2003
