Does Globalization herald the irrelevance of the Nation State?

[Bhaisahab]

That was an idea put forth by a participant in a global debate on outsourcing by CNN International. The guy basically said that in a globalized world, its the corporations that are dominant and their needs are given priority over the needs of the state.
In other words, it does not matter that people in the US are losing jobs or people in India are being forced to buy imported cloth. What matters is that the benefits from this kind of a system go to corporations who owe alleigance not to any nation, but to their shareholders, irrespective of nationality.
I thought that made a little sense. What do you think?

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. Read This

[Maple]

2. Nations will be

the same things as provinces/states/counties are now.

However, no, corporations won't be taking over.

[KT2000]

3. Absolutely!

This is what it is all about.

How relevant is Bush's nation state? Isn't our military fighting for corporate interests right now?
Bush is draining the blood from the middle class in the US - they have become too bloated to serve corp. interests. The new frontier is building a middle class in China and India.

America can't sell out fast enough with the likes of Bush - but the payback will be China. Do you think for one minute they will give up their nation state?? They never have (for centuries) and they never will.

But by the time that happens - America will be weakened

[sadiesworld]

4. Clearly we are headed in that direction.

But it sure as hell doesn't make sense...at least not in any positive way.

[Maple]

5. Sure it does

No artifical barriers anymore.

No 'them and us' anymore.

One world, one race.

[sadiesworld]

6. Sorry, I'm not buying.

[Maple]

9. Doesn't matter if you do or don't

it will happen anyway.

[sadiesworld]

14. If it's a done deal then why bother with the persuasion?

[Maple]

17. I'm not trying to persuade you

I said it's happened, whether you 'buy it' or not.

[ConsAreLiars]

11. That is the natural state, but corporatism won't allow that to happen

They will turn people of different regions into castes and subcastes, or occupational groups, if you prefer. The US proletariat will be the enforcer caste, the Columbians and Kenyans coffee planatation laborers, Korea and Japan will do manufacturing, Hong Kong printing and banking, and every, every, every interaction among them will be tithed and controlled by overlords who have no loyalty or obligation to any nation or culture.

Unless we change things radically.

[Maple]

12. Outdated

That is the socialist or leftwing 'fear' of capitalism.

Socialism and capitalism are long gone, as is the industrial age.

Globalization, and the one planet concept, changed that many years ago. All you see now are the historical leftovers, much like we still have a few blacksmiths even though horse-drawn transportation has long been a thing of the past.

[ConsAreLiars]

13. Capitalism is long gone???

Just a few still hanging around?

Good! Glad to hear it.

[Maple]

18. Yes it is

It died when communism did. We just still have leftover remnants of both, just like we still have a few blacksmiths.

[ConsAreLiars]

20. So we are now in the post capitalist era

And the wars, increasing impoverishment of the people, increased poisoning of our planet and such; these are because a humanistic utopia has been achieved? Well, if this is the future, I want a refund.

(I understand that you are speaking of the broader trends and the material conditions that make such a benign outcome possible. I don't see it as a fait accompli, however.)

[Maple]

21. No we are not. That's an awkward meaningless phrase.

Most people never HAD a capitalist era.

But the fact that more people are aware of, and concerned about, planet-wide problems such as pollution, starvation, and war is a good sign. They aren't seen as local or national things anymore, but as international things that need international solutions.

I didn't say it was a fait accompli, I said we are in a new era when people look at the 'world' as opposed to 'my country'

Doesn't do a country any good at all to clear up all their pollution, every last scrap...if it blows in from elsewhere. We all have to clean it up.

[hiphopnation]

33. I'm trying to follow you here.

I understand your vision of movement in terms of a global human concept.

I have a few questions for you. 1) How are the United States faring in this transformation? (Is the phenomenal support that Bush currently enjoys and the jingoistic fervor that keeps that support hovering about fifty percent of voters solely a reaction to terrorism and 9/11?) I mean, is it simply enough to think of terrorism, the economy, and the environment on a global scale EVEN IF we're thinking of said issues through the rubric of how they benefit us the most?

2) You must concede that corporatism does tend to create distinct classes. At least two distinct classes represented here in America; CEOs and upper-management of said corporations and the rest of us. How best to avoid this? See some of the comments below on the EU, what do you think of that model?

I'm really enjoying your comments. Thanks.

[delete_bush]

7. what's amazing to me is that

freeptards/fundies, who are vemently opposed to the so called 'one world order/government' due to their fierce independence, are the ones who are defacto buying into this with their support of chimpco's policies.

They'll wake up too late one day on the way to their job at Wal*Mart and blame.. it... on.... Clinton's penis!

[Cleita]

8. It would be a very bad idea, because there would be

no balance of power. I even think the USA is too big. I think we should split into two nations. We would of course have treaties, like we should with Canada and Mexico. If one of the nations is taken over in a coup, like what happened to all of the United States in 2000, there should have been the other nation to pull back the idiot Bush from doing what he has done. I am thinking of two militaries here too that are equally balanced. I know this sounds bizarre at this time of night, but someone with authority should examine the possibility and all of its permutation.

[Maple]

10. No more physical or geographical empires

'the empires of the future will be empires of the mind' Winston Churchill

[slaveplanet]

15. No more bill of rights , no more

Constitution, you make serfdom sound like a good thing...sounds as if you're in TOTAL agreement to the Elitists in my sig line. Do you feel it's Sacred as well?

[Maple]

19. Where did I say that?

We have a universal bill of rights, and that's what we'll use.

No one said anything about serfdom either. Why did you assume that??

It also has nothing to do with elitists, or sacredness or your sig line.

One world, one race. Try thinking holistically. A planet, not just your one little country.

[Kenneth ken]

24. I tend to largely agree with you

on this topic.

The big question is how messy it will be getting from here to there. I personally have been opposed to globalization for a dozen years, mostly because I have always seen it as the death of the nation-state.

When I've thought about corporations eliminating that, I've always worried about the way corporations are run, and how that would work on a planetary scale. It's very easy to think in terms of elites and serfs. And with outsourcing for lower wages, that clearly becomes the visible next wave.

Your posts on this thread have given me pause to think about the wave-after-next. A corporation has to produce a product of some kind, and has to have consumers to consume the product. So at some point, for their own preservation, the corporate leaders have to start looking beyond their quarterly bottom line, and at that point have to start focusing on long-term goals.

At that point holistic thinking comes into play, I would hope.

So, similar to the breakup of the USSR, the US will continue its fall (and I do believe it has already fallen beyond the point where it can "catch" itself); we're moving into a messy time.

From that perspective, it might be a good idea to help hasten the fall; so as to get through the next wave, and into the wave-after-next.

[DemExpat]

26. Messy, indeed.....what do you think about the EU's endeavors to

consolidate under globalization's centrifugal force?
Consolidation purely to facilitate commerce, thereby making nation-state's state of being so intricately intermeshed that war is out of the question?

DemEx

[Kenneth ken]

28. good question

"Consolidation purely to facilitate commerce, thereby making nation-state's state of being so intricately intermeshed that war is out of the question?"

Linking that to Maple's thought's I would interpret the EU as trying to lead the way in the "wave-after-next" in my phraseology. Subsuming the individual nations into "counties" after a fashion.

I can't say I've spent as much time as I ought to paying attention to Europe; how are they doing in terms of collective social welfare? I know many of the nations have good social policies, are they trending toward keeping those intact? If so, that would be pointing to a "soft-landing" in the globalized world.

I have thought well of the EU binding as a positive in eliminating war, and making it collectively a stronger presence on the world stage, but not much beyond that.

It might be that Europe leads the world, by example, into what the wave-after-next looks like.

That's a hopeful thought.

:hi:

[DemExpat]

25. It is the only possible vision for our future....imo

and one that I hope manifests itself positively sooner better than later.

I already consider myself an American, a Dutchman (woman), European, and World Citizen...

:kick: :kick: :kick:

DemEx

[BeHereNow]

16. Is this one of those trick questions?

Multinationals have gained control of
the mightiest military on the planet.
Do they see borders? NO!
Are we "special" to them because we are amurikkkans?
HAHAHAHAHAHA
WAKE UP AMERICA- IT'S OVER.
BHN

[nolabels]

22. We concur

I have been saying that for a couple years now on this board, but I heard it from somewhere else 12 or 15 years ago. If you think about it Nam is where the Imperial Corporation really showed their hand. They were always doing their work in the background the whole last century, they just were not noticed that much. With out them there would have never been no WW 1 or 2 and quite a few others.

[BeHereNow]

31. Corporates in Nam:

You are so right-
About five years ago, my daughter made
a documentary in response to an assignment
for her history class- she interviewed a veteran friend
of mine who had flown copters in Nam. Basically
he flew troops in and then returned later to pick
up their bodies. She was in eighth grade then, and
the world was peaceful compared to now.

During the interview, my friend brought up the
involvement of the corporatists and recalled
the first time he saw a truck with a corporate
logo and how he thought at the time,
"What are they doing here?" He recalled
being surprised and confused as to why
a seemingly unrelated corporation was
visible on the landscape in the middle of
the war.
At the end of the interview, he looks directly
into the camera and says something to the effect
that young people should never go to war
without knowing the truth as to why, that
the reasons they are told they are being sent
are probably not the truth and they need to
find out for themselves, because if they know,
they wont go.

Prophetic little history project, eh?

BHN

[nolabels]

32. Thanks for the reply because you just made me realize something....

It seems we, us nation states (or at least that's how they wrap us)are part of this collateral damage. The fear mongers and the people who use fear it for the means to fight these battles are the victims of their own devices. Just like many multinational corporations have countries they claim their home base at, they also claim pieces of their empire all over the world. This diffused look is also why I think they have determined (and claimed for the rest of us)that terrorism such a threat(per capita, more people probably die breaking their neck falling off a bicycle).

The parallels seem weird to me. They both claim no nation so they really cannot be picked out for any big particular target. They have sub-entities claiming to be part, but when inconvenient, they claim not to be part of it. There is really no exact person in charge, but both make these concrete decisions in which want to harm others in some way to gain more power.

Terrorism is a direct assault on top down hierarchal institutions and could never take up a full assault on entire groups, while corporations are set up to do the opposite. The bystanders, the collateral, the nation state. Just like they say in that movie Alien vs Predator "No matter who wins, we still loose"

[AntiFascist]

23. Revolution!

Localized governments serve a purpose of protecting the people within the locale. The problem with outsourcing is that China, or India, are emerging third world countries. The low wages they make in providing services or making products help to improve their standard of living, but at the same time they may work under conditions we would find intolerable. The imbalance in work ethics and what working conditions are tolerated makes outsourcing possible. Just wait until robots and computers do most of the work, then we will see true revolution.

[the_outsider]

27. We are not there yet, but that's where it's probably heading

I do not think they will ever become completely irrelevant though.

Nation/State is important now mainly to enforce security and protection for corporations. Corporations and capital cannot operate in an unstable environment. US government's biggest job now is to provide military services. Most of the world have outsourced their military/security needs to USA and to Russia to some extent. The industrialized/developed nations are protected from each other by deterrence. For them, the deterrence is mostly economic. They cannot wage war between themselves without huge economic consequence to everyone involved. The more tightly coupled the economies are, the less likely a war is.

But currently a lot of countries are not integrated in the global capitalist market. They are the "rogue" countries and the good countries need to be "protected" from them which usually means exploiting their labor and resources as long as they cannot fight back. Of course at the same time good countries need to make money by selling arms to the "rogue" countries and they always quibble about who sell what to whom. The "rogue" countries need the arms to develop military deterrence. For example, USA cannot attack North Korea because North Korea can nuke South Korea which then will have significant impact on US economy.

Long-term plan is to get all "rogue" countries integrated into the system, by force or by negotiation. G-7 (and China) nation/states will work closely with big multinationals to achieve that. Once that's done, they will probably become less important.

Since most of the multinational winners will be from G-8, all the other nation/states will become more important though. If their intentions are good, they will try to squeeze out good deals from the system for their citizens and will develop long-term competitive advantage (China - manufacturing, India - software, IT services for example). If they are corrupt, they will just look for themselves and the citizens will be doomed. For those countries, it will be another round of colonial exploitation.

I would like to believe that a different world order is possible and would emerge somehow, but it does not look very likely at present. It will be very difficult for any country to be completely outside this system and provide economic growth and decent standard of living for all of its people.

[T_i_B]

29. The nation state does matter

because of questions relating to national soverignity. Just ask British Euro-sceptics, who tend to have national sovererignity as their main concern with the European Union.

[IrateCitizen]

30. That's what they're working towards

The problem is, the ascendancy and primacy of corporate power signifies not so much the end of the nation-state, but rather the end of popular representation.

Corporations have little interest in such trivialities as worker rights, the environment, indigenous cultures, and so on. Their sole purpose for being is to create profit for their shareholders, PERIOD.

While government has quite often come down on the side of the rich and powerful throughout history, it has been able to have been used as a tool for public good as well. Here in the United States, it was government that ultimately created the social safety net of the New Deal and the Fair Deal, not corporations. It was government that ultimately amplified the voice of the people in creating environmental protection through the Clean Air and Clean Water acts. It was government that responded to the voice of the people through consumer protection laws.

On the other side, fighting these issues all along, were corporations. They were on the other side not because they specifically didn't like people -- but rather because they saw all of these reforms as cutting into their bottom lines, and their sole purpose for existing IS the bottom line.

The idea of a grand marketplace sounds great -- if you're near the top already. It's the ultimate boon to consumers. But, if your existence revolves around more than buying a bunch of junk you don't really need, and actually considers concerns like popular sovereignty within communities and the idea of "one person, one vote" (as opposed to "one dollar, one vote"), then you might want to question it a little bit.

Nobody elected the corporations to these positions of power, they seized it for themselves. Popular will did not decide that everything on the blue-green earth should be commoditized and sold for profit, corporations did. While the power of corporations is massive, it is far from inevitable. It is up to people, instead, to assert THEIR power over the self-appointed power of corporate interests. There will still be room for corporations in such a world -- so long as they operate within the framework defined by the PUBLIC and the COMMUNITY as the public/community interest.

Have you seen "The Corporation" yet? I highly suggest you do, as it deals with many of these topics.

[hiphopnation]

34. ...