Page 161 - Culture Society and Economy

Robotham-08.qxd 1/31/2005 6:24 PM Page 154

CULTURE, SOCIETY AND ECONOMY

for many without a serious loss of productivity and other efficiencies. The
problem with Schweickart’s idea is that it will have the effect of frag-
menting the operations of these large corporations, many of which oper-
ate most efficiently and productively as integrated global entities. In other
words, there are good economic reasons, independent of monopoly capi-
talism for these corporations to remain as internationally managed and
coordinated entities. This may have to do with technological, cost or infor-
mational efficiencies. Breaking these enterprises up into local branches will
therefore lead to a loss of these efficiencies which will not be available to
the separated divisions. The challenge really is how to capture what one may
call these international externalities for the global good.
If one thinks about this problem seriously, the only feasible solution is
one which it is difficult but necessary to envisage as a practical reality. The
solution which comes to mind is that many of these transnational corpora-
tions, especially the huge Japanese, American and German banks with their
trillion dollar assets, will have to be transformed into international mixed
public–private entities. This is a question which requires much more care-
ful study than has hitherto been accorded to it. If such large public–private
investment banks were to emerge, how would they operate? How would
they be regulated? What implications would they have for the stability of
the international monetary system? How would they affect the flow of hot
money and irresponsible loans to weaker economies? These and many more
questions arise in such a proposal and cry out for further study.
The difficulty in developing a feasible alternative to currently existing
globalization arises from the following contradictory factors. The elimi-
nation of global poverty, indeed human progress as a whole, requires the
further extension of the global division of labor. But such an extension
means in reality an even greater loss of power for individuals, communi-
ties and nations than currently exist under monopoly capital. At the same
time, the very scale of the division of labor, for it to work at all, demands
that these far-flung processes of production which are, in fact, mutually
dependent, be coordinated and centralized at a higher level. Under
monopoly capitalism, this coordination is provided by the head office of
the firm, its executive vice-presidents and board of directors. It is an illu-
sion to think that Wal-Mart’s vast marketing operations coordinate them-
selves, without huge human, financial and technical resources actively
managing this coordination.
Under any conceivable alternative to globalization, this coordination and
centralization will have to be preserved. Indeed, it will have to be increased,
since the goal is to establish a system whereby ordinary individuals and soci-
ety as a whole will have some control over this vast production apparatus

154