Mankind is generally driven by two major forces: 1) The desire of an individual to subscribe to a group or social movement that he can identify with, and 2) then profit-based incentive. From this statement one can draw the following two assumptions about the modern world: 1) the resurgence of nationalist fervor is an inevitable reactionary-consequence of rapid globalization, and 2) mankind's naturally instilled seflishness and drive for profit will constantly preserve, in the least, a small free market in all societies (i.e.the huge black market that developed in the late Soviet Union).
So, if human society continues on a course of forced globalization, what could be a likely result? For one, mankind can expect to see a surge of ultra-nationalism among the major national powers of this era - a perfect example of this can be seen currently in the Russian Federation with the formation of violent youth gangs based on ethno-national lines, the National Fronts in both France and Great Britain, and the growth of the Tea Party in the United States. On another note, trans-national corporations based in many of these superpower states can only be expected to become more powerful and spread their wings even wider.
When combined, the surge of ultra-nationalism and the rapid growth of corporations can be a powerful duo in the international arena. This combination could lead to a situation similar to that of the pre-World War I era with international business functioning as a form of neo-imperialism, for lack of a better term.Yes, this could quite possibly be an explosive system, although man needs to realize that despite how hard we try to become a "global community" under the single identity of "humankind," nationalism and the free market cannot be squandered under the ideal of globalism.
The modern capitalist nation-state will not die.
Very nicely stated.
ReplyDeleteInteresting analysis.
ReplyDeleteAlthough your prediction about fundamentalism could be true, it is not the ultimate outcome of globalization. It is the one that is most stressed in globalization debates as if globalization will be taking something away from individuals or individuals as collective units. What is least focused on is what globalization could "add." If the rhetoric suddenly switch today to highlight what "globalization could add to any given society," could you still talk about an "inevitable reactionary nationalism worldwide?"
Multi-national corporations are interesting, for they create trading hubs worldwide, and lead development through these enclaves, while rest of the locations deteriorate. Until very recently, all externalities associated with economic development were neglected, and considered as unimportant. And today we are talking about limiting externalities in form of "Green-er" policies. We are also talking about corporate responsibility and worker's rights. Laissez Faire is slowly getting modified to look like something else, wouldn't you say?
Additionally, would you say that there is a co-relation between capitalism and nation-state by the way? Are those socialist democracies in Europe not "modern" or "nation-state(-istic)" enough? Is this the reason why Europe was more severely affected by the financial crisis?