Globalisation and the Role of the State - Research Paper Example

?Globalisation and the Introduction In this essay, the relationship of globalisation and the is analysed from a Marxist perspective. Specifically, it attempts to answer the question: What is the relationship between globalisation and the state? This is answered by focusing on the role of the state on globalisation and on the impact of globalisation on the state. Grounded on the Marxist theory of the state, this essay attempts to debunk the popular view that globalisation is by-passing the state and is causing the demise of the state. Thus, this essay asserts that globalisation does not by-pass and cannot cause the demise of nation-states. The explanation to this revolves around the inherent character of the state and capitalism. Hence for a clear presentation of this assertion, globalisation and the state are explained first along the Marxist perspective. The understanding of these two profound concepts provides the basic framework in analysing the interrelationship of globalisation and the state. Globalisation: the Latest Saving Act of Capitalism Globalisation is not and cannot be neutral because it is the ideology of capitalism. As such, it is meant to serve the interest of the capital. Neither can it help enlighten the understanding of the world, since it intends to boast capitalist victory while camouflaging its fundamentally flawed system and its inherent incapacity to meet the needs of the working class of the world. (Brooks 2006) Unsurprisingly, the principal rhetorical strategy of globalisation is the exaltation of the free-market as the best economic system that will bring progress to society (Basu 2008). To believe that globalisation is progressive, and that it frees the capital thereby compelling the invisible hand of the market to equally distribute resources across the globe is contemptible (Renton 2001). As Patnaik (2003, cited in Jodhka 2003, p.1) explained in the case of India, the integration of third world economies into the global world order is not meant to enrich third world economies but rather to revitalise the old unfair configurations of international trade and to re-establish the colonial arrangements of the international division of labour. This is being achieved no longer through the old way of territorial conquest (wars, aggression) but by subordinating the third world to the first world through the control of the mechanisms of the world trade itself (Brooks 2001). In effect, Cox (2002, p.81) argued that globalisation has necessitated the “subordination of domestic economies to the perceived exigencies of the global economy.” Along this framework, “globalisation is essentially the geographic extension of competitive markets, a process dependent on the removal of state barriers to this, and the overcoming of distance through technology” (Gindin and Panitch 2013, p.1). Thus, Gindin and Panitch clarified that the foreign aggression and the continual presence of military installations of the US informal empire in various parts of the world should be seen to be intended primarily to remove capital barriers and to keep the world open to capital accumulation. In short, the accumulation of capital is no longer based on territorial expansion by advanced capitalist countries for exclusive control of natural resources. The world is already divided among super powers and to re-divide it would mean another world war that would be too destructive to all, given the existing highly sophisticated war technology that advanced capitalist countries have today. Hence to avoid common destruction while containing the deepening economic crisis of global capitalism, globalisation pushes capital accumulation by ensuring the free movements of capital and free trade (Gindin and Panitch 2013). Within this framework, globalisation is better described to “reflect less the establishment of a stable new international regime of capital accumulation than an aspect of the decay of the old 'social structure of accumulation” (Cox 1987 and Gordon 1988, cited in Panitch 1994, p.61). Therefore, globalisation is the latest capitalist manoeuver to save its system from its deepening crisis. The State: Fundamental to Capitalism What is the state that its relation to globalisation has become debatable? How does it operate that it could be a crucial matter in understanding globalisation? The Marxist theory of the state (Engels 1883; 1884; Marx and Engels 1932) viewed state as a necessary consequence of the social division of labour from which social classes with conflicting interests emerged, consequently causing insoluble class antagonisms. Consequnetly, there arose the need to impose ‘order’ by a power towering above and alienating itself more and more from the society. This necessary power is the state. In short, the state is “a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms” (Lenin 1918, p.6). It is a violent instrument of class rule by the dominant class for the exploitation of the oppressed class (Hay 1999; Mandel 2003). But, the state is not eternal. It withers once the material bases of its existence cease. (Lenin 1917; 1918) Therefore, the state is fundamental to global capitalism. The Relationship between Globalisation and the State Given the above discussion on globalisation and the state, what then is the relationship between globalisation and the state? To answer this question, the role of the state in globalisation and the impact of globalisation on the state are analysed, debunking the popular views that influence both advocates and oppositions of globalisation. The role of the state in globalisation To analyse the role of the state in globalisation from a Marxist perspective, one should never lose grip on the fundamental characteristics of the state and on the fundamentality of the state to capitalism. Meaning, without the state, capitalism will never survive; without the state globalisation cannot proceed. Hence, it would be erroneous to think that globalisation is rendering the state irrelevant and powerless or that the territorial power of the state is withering, as globalists and anti-globalists alike argued (Weiss 2000). As Panitch (1994) rightly noted, globalisation is actually taking place in, through and under the tutelage of states with the states fixing and even authoring the free movement of capital. National policies and practices are made to fit-in to the needs of globalisation (Cox 1996). In short, the removal of national barriers for the smooth functioning of market mechanisms to ensure the free movement of capital and free trade has been made possible by nation states (Cox 1987, cited in Panitch 1994, p.68). Actually, this role requires the sanction of a coercive force; hence it is meant solely for the state. Though it is true that international financial and economic institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organisation appear more powerful than nation-states in designing national economic roadmaps, this presents only half of the truth. The other more important half of the truth that is oftentimes concealed is the fact that behind these international institutional enforcers of global capitalism are the powerful hands of none other than the advanced capitalist countries. In effect, the dominance of the international capital is in reality the dominance of strong nations over weak nations. (Brooks 2001) Furthermore, the greater economic and social interdependence that globalisation has created makes public policy decision making no longer possible at the national level only, because it has to be elevated from the national to the regional and international level, while it has to be participated in by nation-states, thus creating a multi-layered system of governance – national, regional, global. Despite this, the role of the state either in the local or international arena has remained vital. The participation of states in the international arena is in fact an exercise of its sovereignty. (Bertucci and Alberti 2001) Moreover, the state “integrates the governing powers and forms a structure where power is distributed upwards to the international level and downwards to sub-national agencies” (Hirst and Thompson 1996, cited in Goksel 2012, p.8). Therefore, globalisation is not rendering the state irrelevant. Instead, globalisation is “transforming the conditions under which state power is exercised” (Held and McGrew 1998, cited in Goksel 2012, p.10). In fact, these conditions have further increased the need for the state not only of adopting but also of facilitating obedience to the unrestrained rationality of the global capital accumulation within its sphere, even if only to guarantee that it can effectively deliver its obligations to act globally by ensuring that globalisation is adhered to domestically (Panitch 1994). In short, role of the state is vital to globalisation in the sense that the opening of national borders for free capital accumulation is at the hands of the state. The impact of globalisation on the state Advocates and oppositionists of globalisation similarly view that the processes of globalisation are causing the by-passing or demise of the state. However, Panitch (1994) argued that global capitalism does not and cannot by-pass or demise the state because it is the state that authored globalisation; it is the state that is supporting globalisation. It should be noted that “markets are not natural and had to be made and that states are fundamental actors in this process” (Gindin and Panitch 2013, p.1). In turn, the state becomes stronger as global capital accumulation succeeds. As discussed earlier, the theory of the state asserts the interrelation of the state to capital development and reproduction. Thus in pursuit of enabling the capital to further exploit the global market, states authorised globalisation not to diminish the state but rather to reorganise it in such a way that the global capital is maintained. What has changed is the nature of state intervention, which essentially is a reorganisation pertinently termed by (Panitch (1994, p.63) as ‘new constitutionalism for disciplinary neo-liberalism’. Evidently, global capitalism is organised at nation-states and is dependent on the state in executing policies that matter to business. Hence, the state remains to be the structure of power in the global economy. (Pinder 2011) Besides, “the national state continues to be the most important bounded territorial form in which production networks are embedded” (Dicken 2011, p. 62). Therefore, globalisation does not and cannot cause the demise of the state because they thrive on each other. The state’s demise is the failure of globalisation. Conclusion Understanding globalisation requires a firm theoretical grounding on the Marxist theory of the state. Without this, one could not penetrate what truly lies behind globalisation. But a clear grasp on the theory of the state enables one to easily understand that globalisation serves nothing but the survival of global capitalism. As such, it needs to strengthen the state by reorganising it along the exigencies of the world capital. Hence to argue that globalisation is diminishing the state is a grave offense to Marxist thought because it makes globalisation progressive and revolutionary. Reference List Basu, P. K. 2008. Globalisation: an anti-text. A local view. Delhi: Aakar Books. ISBN 978-81-89833-53-4. Bertucci, G. and Alberti, A. 2001. Globalisation and the role of the state: challenges and perspectives. Available at: http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan006225.pdf [Accessed October 26 2013]. Brooks, M. 2006. Globalisation and imperialism. In Defence of Marxism [online]. Available at: http://www.marxist.com/globalisation-imperialism-economy110406.htm [Accessed October 26 2013]. Cox, R. W. 1996. Global perestroika (1992). In Approaches to world order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.296-316. Cox, R. W. 2002. The political economy of a plural world: critical reflections on power, morals and civilisation. Oxon, OX: Routledge. Dicken, P. 2011. Global shift: mapping the changing contours of the world economy, 6th edition. New York and London: The Guildford Press. Engels, F. 1843.Outlines of a critique of political economy. Germany: Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher. Transcribed for the Internet by director in Marx/Engels Archive, February 1996. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm [Accessed October 26 2013]. Engels, F. 1884. The origin of the family, private property and the state. NSW, Australia: Resistance Books. ISBN 1876646357. Reprinted. 2004. Gindin, S. and Panitch, L. 2013. The state and the making of global capitalism. New Left Project. Available at: http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_state_and_the_making_of_global_capitalism [Accessed: October 25 2013]. Goksel, N. K. 2012. Globalisation and the state. [online] Available at: http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/1.-NiluferKaracasuluGoksel.pdf [Accessed: October 26 2013] Hay, C. 1999. Marxism and the state. In Gamble, A., Marsh, D. and Tant, T. eds. Marxism and social science. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 152-74. Jodhka, S. S. 2003. A Marxist critique of globalization. The Tribune [online]. Available at: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031221/spectrum/book4.htm [Accessed October 25 2013]. Lenin, V. I. 1917. Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism. Republished in Lenin’s Selected Works, vol. 1, pp. 667-766. 1963. Reprinted in Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org).2005. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm [Accessed October 26 2013]. Lenin, V. I. 1918. The state and revolution: the Marxist theory of the state and the task of the proletariat in the revolution. Collected Works, 25, pp. 381-92. Converted to eBook format by anonymous in Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org). 1993, 1999. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/ebooks/lenin/state-and-revolution.pdf [Accessed October 25 2013]. Mandel, E. 2003. Marxist theory: Origin and development of the state in the history of societies. International Viewpoint: News and analysis from the Fourth International [online]. Available at: http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article187 [Accessed October 25 2013]. Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1932. A critique of the German ideology. Republished in Marx/Engels Internet archive (Marxist.org) [online]. 2000. Available at: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/Marx_The_German_Ideology.pdf [Accessed October 25 2013]. Panitch, L. 1994. Globalisation and the state. In Miliband, R. and Panitch, L. eds. Between globalism and nationalism: Social Register 1994. London: Merlin Press, pp. 60-93. Pinder, S. O. 2011. The nation state in the era of globalisation: some challenges. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(2) February, pp.139-48. Renton, D. ed. 2001. Marx on globalisation. London: Lawrence and Wishart. ISBN 0 85315 909-2. Weiss, L. 2000. Globalisation and state power. Development and Society, 29 (1) June, pp.1-15. Read More