Nation-states and economies in late stage capitalism - SÜLEYMAN SEYFI ÖĞÜN

Nation-states and economies in late stage capitalism

I often mention in this column that we are experiencing a deep systemic crisis. There are two main approaches to dealing with the situation. The first focuses on the nation-state code (the nation-state). This view departs from the international relations system. Thus, issues are seen between nation-states. For example, there is competition and hostility between the United States of America and China, and between the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia.


This opinion is not wrong. In fact, the world is now organized according to nation-states. In this case, whatever the nature of the issues, they will be settled at the state level or at the international level.


As for the second prevailing view, it is purely economic and technological. Accordingly, there are economic and technological forces that are relatively independent of nation-state formations. According to this viewpoint, these forces represent the decisive forces in history. Although there are conflicts between states on the scene, these forces will make the final decision in the new world that will be created in the future. It is worth noting that the basis for this claim is so important that it cannot be underestimated.


So where is the problem? The problem is on both sides. Let's start with the first point of view. This view holds that non-political factors, especially economics, are subject to the direction and control of politics. They insist on treating the economy as a comprehensive national political economy. So, for example, the US-Chinese tension, if we start from the economy, does not go outside the scope of the US economy and the Chinese economy, which are under the control of countries and nations. To put it more clearly, the United States and China have national economies, along with capital and labor markets. The struggle is between a strong national capital in the United States, and a strong national capital in China as well. In the end, one of them will win and emerge as the dominant force in the new world order.


Meanwhile, the second view focuses on the processes of accumulation, diffusion, and distribution of capital and labor, especially in the stage of globalization, and tends to consider the transformation of relations between states to conflicting grounds as a deep crisis and distortion in the formations of the nation-state. Those who hold this view claim that the new products developed by the independent forces of economy and technology change society, frustrate states and nations, and expose states that cannot accommodate them. As evidence of this, they point out that shifts in capital and labor markets have penetrated and bypassed crypto-structures as nation-states.


It is worth noting that the mistake that the proponents of the first view make is that they cannot abandon the symbols of the world that were established after the Second World War. Yes, that was the picture that formed between 1945 and 1989. Capital, and economies in general, were largely controlled by nation-states.


The perception that economies are national was a consequence. But in the last quarter of a century, it has crossed that limit. Once we look at the founding date of the East India Company (1600), we can say that capitalism has always been global, based on the expansion and diffusion of capital, and the issue was that this expansion required states and nations. It was a powerful globalist, nationalist, and totally West-centric. Differences represented in the West and the East, the civilized and the savage, the white man and the black man, France-French, Britain-Britain, Germany-German, and Holland-Dutch have emerged as a result of this need. These concepts introduce the symbols of accumulation and diffusion. Over time, the whole world was encoded by these symbols.


What happened in the process of globalization? This concept itself shows that capital, with a universal motive, no longer needs the state and nation (national) that has continued with it until then. First, they filtered distributions (redistributions) through neoliberal exercises. This means disruptions in labor markets.


Second, there was a sudden change in trading in the process of spreading. Industrial capital has lost its western character. Soon he moved to Asia. And the West still has an opportunity to control the accumulation processes on a technological basis. But they also lost it. The equivalent in current data codes has been to confront nation-state structures in the first place. But I believe that this process will result in consolidation, will be completed by fascist tyranny, and will develop into multilateral militarism.


Accordingly, the picture can be assessed as follows: the structures of the nation-state were a need for industrial capitalism. Industrial capitalism has mainly migrated to China. It was followed by technical capitalism, which changed capital and labor and thus prepared the future. China has been under the pressure of these two contradictory forces.


The recent crises in the Chinese economy were a consequence. And I don't think China will be able to deal with this terrible contradiction. The trend shows that old, powerful, patriotic industrial capitalism is on its way to disintegration. The second point of view, which indicates this, leads to more accurate results. As for its weaknesses, they are more profound. Because it cannot free its mind from the economic and technological work environment, and it has no ethical concerns. History shows that the most serious errors stem from the most striking facts.

+

Cookies are used limited to the purposes in th e Personal Data Protection Law No.6698 and in accordance with the legislation. For detailed information, you can review our cookie policy.