I read the article about the differing views on globalization and its many theories. I really enjoyed the counterpoints that were posited against some of the more common beliefs (ie - globalization means that there are no centers of power, the state is falling away...). I think that the vast majority of people, and I can count myself among them, have sometimes forgotten the very intricate relationship between government and firms. Especially in America, we should always look to the interactions between these two fronts to determine the real nature of "globalization." This country was, after all, the land of trust-busters and then, quite conversely, the supporter of private sector enterprise through means of tax legislation and bail-outs.
In the end, I think this particular theory of industrial imperialism and the fading of the state was killed totally and utterly by the subtle reminder of Max Weber's definition of "State." Radical though it may seem, he noticed that the State was the power which held a monopoly on violence. How's that for business terms? A monopoly on violence. This is the ability to wage wars, subdue riots, jail citizens, sentence inmates of a certain caliber to death. From a business standpoint, all these actors (other nations, rioters, criminals, inmates) are smaller firms trying to get a foothold in the market of legal violence. This is, of course, absurd. The State will in every case squash rivals and protect its territory. Based on current affairs, I'd have to admit: the State (still in the terms that we are used to) is not going anywhere.
It's a short response and I know I'm mostly just commenting here, but I think there's some good literature out there that reminds us to examine evidence. I know I'm guilty of it too, but it is far too easy to throw around sexy terms like "globalization" and then spend an academic career positing its many working parts and implications without doing any real investigation.
It was refreshing. I thought so, anyhow.
No comments:
Post a Comment