SolidarityEconomy.net

Two forms of accumulation characterize the current world capitalism system; the old nation-centric Fordist model, and the emerging transnational system of production. This is a historically determined and dialectical process filled with tension and politically represented by different hegemonic blocs. (see Harris, “Science & Society,” Vol. 67, #1).

In brief, the nation-centric system is characterized by: guarding home markets for national capital, export competition, bi-lateral trade agreements, state-directed and protected economic development, expanding the national job base while incorporating large sections of the working class into a social contract, and using the state to advance the position of national monopolies while securing their access to international resources and markets.

The transnational mode of accumulation is characterized by: cross border mergers and acquisitions, FDI, rapid speculative cross border flows of capital, global production chains, foreign affiliates, outsourcing labor, global best practices, multilateral trade agreements, a common global regulatory structure for finance, trade and investment, and use of the state to rearrange national structures to serve global practices.

Transnational competition is different from national competition, it occurs in the battle to establish world spanning monopolies through a mix of global assembly lines, world R&D, suppliers and markets. With global accumulation strategies transnationals become an integral part of multiple national economies. The results of which don’t enrich their nation of origin, just the shareholders - who are an international mix of capitalists.

Therefore the strategic orientation of transnationals is to guarantee a stable flow of energy and resources for their global assembly lines. The monopoly control of resources by one country, whereby it can threaten or withhold resources and drive other economies into recession or ruin, is a threat to the stability of the entire system. For transnationals there is no, nor should be, any single national imperative. For example, 90 percent of the world’s 500 largest transnationals are in China and need to secure a steady flow of energy to produce the commodities they sell world-wide. In fact the relationship to China is a continual point of contention between globalists and nationalists wings of capitalism. Nationalists defining China as a strategic competitor and enemy, globalists seeing it as a strategic partner.

Let’s review a few figures. There are 70,000 transnational corporations, with 690,000 affiliates, holding $36 trillion in foreign assets, employing 60 million workers. Their average transnationality index (the ratio of foreign assets, employees and sales to home assets, employment and sales) is 55%. (UNCTD 2005) Sales of foreign affiliates is now almost twice as large as cross border trade, $9.7 trillion to $5.3 trillion. (UNCTD 2002) And of the 100 largest transnationals just 25 come from the US. (UNCTD 2004) All this points a global system of co-dependency and integration, not one of US hegemony.

Jeffrey Joerres, CEO of Manpower (headquartered in Milwaukee) nicely articulates the contradiction between the national and transnational systems. “I’m an American and I have 85% of our business outside the US. If we open a new call center in Mumbai, we just created jobs in India. If I open in the US we create jobs in the US. So I have to lead a schizophrenic life. I’m agnostic, to some extent, as to where those jobs are created, because I have as much responsibility for the health of our Indian or French operation as I do to the US operation. But I only get to vote in one country. There is a difficulty of politicians needing to do what they need to do on a nationalistic level. But the world is moving at a whole different pace. The world is global but the politician is local. And its going to create some real stress.”

The same problem can be seen in Germany over the effort by Deutsche Bank to become a global player. Says Klaus Nieding of the German Shareholders Protection Association, “Deutsche Bank is a deutsche bank - a German bank. It comes out of Germany, it works for German industry.” Answers Rolf Breuer, Deutsche Bank chair: “The majority of our customers, the majority of our employees, the majority of our earnings are not German. So why should we be the German icon?” Clearly globalists have moved beyond national identity and nationally based competition.

The Nationalist Alternative

The globalists formed a hegemonic political project in the 1970s and 80s, but in the US there was always a counter bloc based upon the nation-centric mode of accumulation with different strategic imperatives. This bloc came to power with George W. Bush and is based on the military/industrial complex which seeks to maintain US dominance abroad and promotes a nation-centric view of the international system. For its popular political and cultural base of support this bloc relies on religious fundamentalism, a movement that sees the world as a clash of civilizations with the US defending the superiority of Western Christianity. Developed as the alternative post-Soviet world strategy to globalism, US unilateral domination was best articulated by the neo-conservatives who had the most ideologically advanced vision. But Washington did not suffer a neo-con coup or simply a new political alliance, but rather the ascension of a counter hegemonic bloc of US capital with a different strategic world view. Unilateralism and growing protectionism in the US has created echoes in Russia, China, S. Korea and other countries. While globalization continues, nationalism is still a powerful force shaping its development.

As for the national roots of the military/industrial complex we can use Lockheed Martin as an example. Lockheed Martin has 939 facilities in 457 US cities in 45 states, 72% of sales come directly from the US government, and foreign sales comprise about 21% of their market compared to an average of 49% for transnationals. While they do have a number of joint ventures the majority of their foreign sales are by export. Such nation centric figures are common for other leading weapon producers. (For more on the military/industrial complex see Harris, “Race and Class” Vol. 44 #2, 2002.)

Of all strategic resources oil is the most nationally controlled, the majority of assets owned by state corporations in Iran, China, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. Yet the largest private interests are dominated by US and UK firms such as BP, Shell, Exxon-Mobile and Texaco-Chevron. This may create a unique situation for transnational oil corporations in which they rely on US and UK state/military power to help gain access and compete with state owned oil enterprises. In addition, Johnathan Nitzan and Shimshon Bichler have traced a strong correlation between oil, the arms industry and war in the Middle East. (“The Global Political Economy of Israel) In short, such are the lines of demarcation between globalists and nationalists and the resource wars.