Αντιλήψεις για το κράτος στη θεωρία της παγκοσμιοποίησης

Abstract

Perceptions for the state in the theory of GLOBALIZATION. The last decades we became witnesses of an important reformation of capitalistic process of production, with consequences in economic, social and political level. The end of Keynesian system during 1970's, the progressive ideological and political predominance of neoliberalism during 1980's, and the introduction of globalization since 1990's, became characteristics which continuously changing the modern world. The subject of the present research is the investigation of the significance of state, as expressed in the approaches on globalization. Each one of these, by most fervent until the most critical, all, they characterized by the perception that "they hold" a new role for the state, its function and structure, with concrete consequences in the productive process. Even if many are the factors that are presented as constitutive of the significance of globalization, in the present research they are adopted three sovereign these are the mobility of capital mainly under its stock exchange form, the technological developments that are related to the sectors of telecommunications and computer and finally the restructuring of the role of the state in economic and ideological level. The significance of globalization functions (at a part) as reason in the present research. This with an important number of neoliberal approaches, incorporate the most modern efforts of holistic interpretation of directions and changes of the capitalistic way of production the last three decades. On the other hand, state constitutes a integral piece of capitalistic process of production, where the structural and operational changes have direct and indirect consequences that allocated to all the parts of daily life. The state theory constitutes an integral part of the approaches of globalization, provided that no one of them, either expressed in favor or against, does not leave out of the analysis the significance of state, the changes and its reformations. The first object of the analysis is to find and classify the different approaches on globalization, as these expressed by researchers, international organizations and concrete policies that applied to national or other level. This relates to a second criterion. This is not other than the state, the role, the importance and the form that it receives. The question is, how the different approaches understand the state and its role in the international economic system. A second element is that globalization face as reversely proportional of state power In most of them, as much as stronger is globalization the importance of state undermined. A second part of present research extracts through each approach's analysis. Objective is not a simple bibliographic approach on globalization and the state. On the contrary, the objective that places through is to identify the model of the state that each approach proposes in relation to globalization In order to become possible the description of what is the state today, "are mobilized" four nodal questions to which the above approaches answer. The first concerns the reasons of state intervention. Next question that is placed concerns the form that state takes in the modern period and what are the differences from previous periods'? Another question is limits of state intervention. The ability of the state to impose an acceptable public policy, based on its ability to legalize itself. This leads as to the fourth question that concerns how the national state receives the essential legalization, in order to practice its role. Globalization incorporates all those characteristics that neoliberal theory adapts in a more internationalized frame. The role of state constitutes a basic element of the neoliberal theories and of the later globalization approaches. This is the most serious conclusion of the present research. While politically and ideologically decrease its importance, in the same time they use it to promote and practice effectively their political choices If the above is a reality, then why this happens? In order to answer this question we have to describe four basic problem of the contemporary capitalism. First, in the micro-economic level, is the problematic fordic - teyloristic organization of production process. A major change involves the import of new technologies which give the ability cut the production line to small simple productive parts. Through this ability, it is observed the phenomenon of transferring such productive activities in countries with cheap labor cost, or the abolition of these pieces from the enterprise and their replacement with contracts of production flat-rate. A lot of enterprises change the traditional tactic of mobilization of production factors for the manufacture of a product, engaging work with contract and concrete time interval, with wage that is overwhelmed with the delivery of product. Substantially is observed a transformation of the work as a factor of production to a product. The second problem that capital faced is the increased cost of labor. Central element-objective constituted the reduction of cost of production and more concretely the cost of work (non-wage cost that is connected to the welfare state). The growth of the welfare state and of redistributive policies that combined with different developmental rhythms by those of the 1980s constituted the objective for the derogation of profitability. This strategy under the ideological and political wrapping that neoliberal approaches offered, came in direct conflict, to the government owned institutions and policies and to the engagements of capital concerning labor. Globalization offered the suitable alibi and the essential legalization for the disengagement of capital from its constitutionalized obligations. The change of class balance since the period of crisis after 1973, had concrete results inside state. This was the domination of neoliberal policies in most of developed countries, such as USA and UK. At that period observed the following paradox while the state owned policy were progressively dominated by neoliberal elites, in the same time it has been attacked ideologically, for its unreliability and for failing interventionist policies. Consequently there was taken place a scorn of state owned policy from himself and its administrators. These actions were connected with concrete political objectives. The first was the need to gain ideological support-essential condition for the application of market-friendly policies. Second was the ideological umbrella, necessary for the confrontation of the reactions from the side of the work, which possessed important force in the institutionalized levels of corporatistic models of tripartite collaboration. Nevertheless the corporatistic institutions, they continue to exist, placing obstacles in the process of their weakening. At the same time, the release of markets and the intensity of competition, produce crises (particularly in the most liberalized sectors, like the Stock Exchange market). These place in danger the balance of system, intensifying the inter-capitalist differences and most importantly intensifying the class conflicts. Under this prism, the invocation of the crisis of state, is a false argument, which its objective is the ideological cover of reformations of certain parts of its action, as historically solidified the last 50 years. It is important to say that we should not idealize the role of the state. Many, because of the role that played during Keynesian period, led to a perception that the state is the institution that can protect the dominated class. This leads to wrong conclusions on the political and ideological action opposite to the important problems that create the release of markets and the increasing inequalities. The state cannot be characterized either as "enemy" or as "friend". The conflict of orders expressed in the institutions and the policies of state, but does not take place inside them exclusively. Other fields are much more important, as these in political and ideological level. Some approaches try to prove that, as far as concerns the world system, state today do not characterized by any important change, in correlation to previous decades. Through this argument they conclude that the supporters of globalization propose a non-existent subject. Substantially the fabricated argument of impersonal globalization and of the neutral technology appears to work effectively, restructuring class balance. What is proposed in this text is the fundamentally political and ideological character of changes the last thirty years. Through the texts that presented two are the general conclusions. The first concerns the sovereignty of neoliberal ideas in political and ideological level in the frames of national state. The argument of free world market would not have any practical importance, if it wasn't capable to answer to the Keynesian and corporatist structures of the national state. The second conclusion is that an international system without the basic institutions that could protect the operation and the existence of capital and guarantee its rights, it does not appear to have importance, neither for the capital, neither for its supporters and finally neither for its decriers.

Η έννοια της παγκοσμιοποίησης και του κράτους. Τις τελευταίες δεκαετίες γινόμαστε μάρτυρες μιας σημαντικής αναδιάρθρωσης της καπιταλιστικής διαδικασίας της παραγωγής, με συνέπειες σε οικονομικό, κοινωνικό και πολιτικό επίπεδο Το τέλος του κευνσιανού συστήματος κατά τη διάρκεια του 1970, η σταδιακή ιδεολογικοπολιτική επικράτηση του νεοφιλελευθερισμού κατά την δεκαετία του 1980, όπως επίσης και η εισαγωγή της έννοιας της παγκοσμιοποίησης μετά το 1990, αποτέλεσαν γεγονότα τα οποία άλλαξαν και συνεχίζουν να αλλάζουν το σύγχρονο κόσμο. Εντός αυτού του πλαισίου, αντικείμενο της παρούσας έρευνας είναι η διερεύνηση της έννοιας του κράτους, έτσι όπως αυτή εκφράζεται στις προσεγγίσεις για την παγκοσμιοποίηση. Κάθε μια από αυτές τις προσεγγίσεις, από τις πιο ένθερμες έως τις πιο επικριτικές, όλες, χαρακτηρίζονται από το γεγονός ότι «επιφυλάσσουν» ένα νέο ρόλο για το κράτος, τη λειτουργία και τη δομή του, με συγκεκριμένες συνέπειες στην παραγωγική διαδικασία. Παρόλο που πολλοί είναι οι παράγοντες που εμφανίζονται ως συστατικοί της έννοιας της παγκοσμιοποίησης, στην παρούσα έρευνα υιοθετούνται τρεις κυρίαρχοι αυτοί είναι η κινητικότητα του κεφαλαίου κύρια με την χρηματιστηριακή του μορφή, οι τεχνολογικές εξελίξεις που σχετίζονται με τους τομείς των τηλεπικοινωνιών και της πληροφορικής και τέλος η αναδιάρθρωση του ρόλου του κράτους σε οικονομικό και ιδεολογικό επίπεδο. Στην εκτενή βιβλιογραφία που αφορά στην παγκοσμιοποίηση, προβάλλονται ένας αριθμός άλλων παραγόντων ως συστατικοί της έννοιας. Τέτοια παραδείγματα είναι η αύξηση της κίνησης των εμπορευμάτων η οποία όμως δεν χαρακτηρίζεται από πρωτοφανή ποσοστά, οι ρυθμοί ανάπτυξης της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας που επίσης ακολουθούν αυξητικούς ρυθμούς μικρότερους παλαιότερων δεκαετιών, η αύξηση της Ξένης Άμεσης Επένδυσης η οποία τροφοδοτείται από την αύξηση των συγκυριακών Συγχωνεύσεων και των Εξαγορών, η αύξηση της δύναμης των πολυεθνικών εταιρειών η οποία σχετίζεται τόσο με γεωγραφικούς, εθνικούς και πολιτισμικούς περιορισμούς, όσο και με ένα αυξημένο Ενδοεπιχειρησιακό εμπόριο που αναπτύσσεται για λόγους κυρίως εκμετάλλευσης φορολογικών και άλλων προνομίων. Ένα τελευταίο συστατικό στοιχείο που αποδίδεται στην παγκοσμιοποίηση, είναι η πολιτισμική σύγκλιση μέσα από την διεθνοποίηση της ενημέρωσης και την διαφήμιση. Η έννοια της παγκοσμιοποίησης λειτουργεί (κατά ένα μέρος) ως αφορμή στην παρούσα έρευνα. Αυτή μαζί με ένα σημαντικό αριθμό νεοφιλελεύθερων προσεγγίσεων, ενσωματώνουν τις πιο σύγχρονες προσπάθειες ολιστικής ερμηνείας των κατευθύνσεων και των αλλαγών του καπιταλιστικού τρόπου παραγωγής τις τρεις τελευταίες δεκαετίες. Από την άλλη πλευρά, το κράτος αποτελεί ένα αναπόσπαστο κομμάτι της καπιταλιστικής διαδικασίας παραγωγής, όπου οι αλλαγές στην δομή και την λειτουργία του έχουν άμεσες και έμμεσες συνέπειες που επιμερίζονται σε όλες τις πλευρές της καθημερινής ζωής. Η θεωρία για το κράτος αποτελεί «αναπόσπαστο μέρος» των προσεγγίσεων της παγκοσμιοποίησης, εφόσον καμία από αυτές είτε εκφράζεται υπέρ είτε κατά αυτής δεν αφήνει εκτός της ανάλυσης την έννοια του κράτους, τις αλλαγές και τις αναδιαρθρώσεις του. […]