Multinationals and the Nation-State A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Multinationals and the Nation-State A. Game "NATIONAL INTERESTS” OR “CLASS in Australia, claims that with the rise of the INTERESTS?” (mostly American) multinational corporation w hich is “ responsible to no one” , "w hat is in In the last few years a substantial number of question is the survival of the nation s ta te .....” marxist analyses of post-war capitalism have (2). As such analyses have been reflected in located the dominant contradiction of the strategies of working class and left political imperialism as one between multinational (or organisations it is important to demonstrate transnational) corporations and the nation that they are based on concepts derived from state. While there are variations on the theme, bourgeois liberal frameworks, and that the general conception is of a “power consequently they lead to inadequate struggle” between multinational corporations strategies for a revolutionary movement. To and nation states. Thus in contemporary put it most bluntly, there is a significant trend analyses of Australian capitalism we find towards various forms of nationalism which statements such as: have the effect of concealing class conflict and burying working class interests by proposing "The problem of building up the nation state is alliances with the national bourgeoisie, or that with multinationals such nation states can defence of one’s own state, against foreign or exercise only a limited sovereignty on local international capital. Wheelwright's statement branches of such companies." (1) that "there are conflicts between the interests of international corporations and the national Wheelwright, who has made the most interest” (op. cit. p. 60) is not uncommon, and extensive analyses of international capitalism a frequent solution offered is that “Australia” should be put in the hands of Australian Ann Game is a post-graduate research student in ownership rather than being owned by Adelaide. America or Japan. (3) 18 MULTINATIONALS AND THE NATION STATE One of these analyses of multinational between these firms, this is seen as corporations does actually admit that an qualitatively different to “imperialist state explanation of the nature of “national interests rivalries at the end of the nineteenth century” can be provided only after a discussion of the (my emphasis). This view rests on the relationships between class and state and assumption that "the multinational between class and imperialism”; butthen goes corporation has emerged as a more powerful on to say that it is outside the scope of the entity than the nation state. The new empires paper; that “national interests” will be are the giant corporations ....” (8) The political assumed, as in bourgeois ideology, “without conclusions of such a view are the same as analysing the real class dimension.” (4) It is to those of the ultra-imperialist position - that is, be argued here that the nature of one that claims there are no contradictions inter-imperialist relations can only be grasped between capitalist states, the only significant in the context of those questions neglected by contradiction being that between imperialism Marinelli and Somaini. Misunderstandings of and the “third world”. A particular variation of these relations have arisen as a result of the this is super-imperialism. The argument in this meaning given to such concepts as the case is that as a result of the dominance of US “multinational corporation”, “national capital, all capitalist states are united under interests”, and “nation state” in a number of the leadership and domination of the US recent analyses. It is necessary to break with super-state. (9) Barratt Brown claim s that in ideological concepts and reformulate the the light of the fact that rivalry between question in class terms. In these terms an capitalist nation states has been contained in analysis of inter-imperialist contradictions the face of competition from the communist w ould notask the question “w hat can or can’t a world and national liberation movements (1)) state do in the face of large multinational and that firms are “now transnational ”, Sweezy corporations?” Rather, the focus would be on is correct in seeing the only possible the effect that the internationalisation of revolutionary initiative coming from the capital has on the relations between impoverished masses in underdeveloped imperialist bourgeoisies, and consequently on countries (See Baran and Sweezy Monopoly the role of the nation and state in Capital). Such positions ignore the inter-imperialist relations. contradictions within and between imperialist bourgeoisies and the importance of class MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS struggle in metropolitan countries. The view The key features of the post World War 2 that the Leninist conception of phase of capitalism that are noted by most inter-imperialist rivalry (rivalry between states marxist commentators, but variously in defence of certain fractions of capital) has interpreted are, firstly, the massive increase in been superseded with the emergence of direct foreign investment (thatis the setting up transnational corporations is based on a of manufacturing plants in other countries, misunderstanding of the relation between rather than the take-over of shares in existing capital and the state, and leads to reformism in local enterprises) (5) and secondly, that this practice. (11) That is, if the rise of the investment is taking place in other advanced multinational corporation has in some sense capitalist countries rather than in meant the demise of national states, the underdeveloped countries. (6) question of state power, central to revolutionary strategy, becomes obscured. The significance of direct foreign (This is to be taken up again later). investment inside other metropolitan countries (that is, centres of im perialism ) is, The question of the displacement of direct however, often missed; particularly when it is foreign investment towards metropolitan expressed ih terms of the "rise of the centres has similarly been misinterpreted by multinational corporation”. The focus on those who hold an ultra-imperialist position. transnational or multinational corporations as (12) Those advanced capitalist countries the characteristic feature of this phase of where US capital holds dominant position capitalism h§s led “neo-marxists” such as become, in their schema, quasi-colonies, Barratt Browh to claim that there is a need to analgous to peripheral countries: “a line of revise the traditional marxist theories of continuity is thus drawn between the states of imperialism (Lenin's Imperialism specifically). the Third World and the smaller industrial While admitting that there is competition nations e.g. Britain.” (13) That is, the “power” AUSTRALIAN LEFT REVIEW SEPTEMBER, 1975 19 of metropolitan states is being destroyed Mao’s warning against collaboration with either under the domination of large US sections of a ruling class in semi-colonial capital, or the US superstate, or “international” countries is even more vital in the case of capital “above” states. (14) The strategy that imperialist countries. suggests itself in the light of this view is an The crucial point with regard to alliance with the national bourgeoisie against mulTmatToTTaTgorporatlons is~fo understand US imperialism. Such strategies are based on that they are effects of the concentration and misunderstandings of the relation between US centralisation processes of capital. 3h a capital and the bourgeoisies within these worTiJwicfe scale. That is. they are sim ply the formations. As Mandel has pointed out, the ihsffiuFionaTTorm of this stage of monopoly percentage increase in direct. foreign capitaliSmTThey don’t signify thaTcapitalism investment inside other metropoles,Contrary hasTJuaJjtatively changed, butTather, are^the to this view, signifies intensification of necessary result of the basic dynamics ©f inter-imperialist competition. (15) capitalist development (16) which exist It is interesting to compare strategies for independent' of multinational corporations. “national independence” of, for example, Martinelli and Somaini, for example, assume Australia, put forward by some “maoist” that because the “multinational corporation groups, with Mao’s view on the same question embodies the processes of concentration and in the case of semi-colonial countries: centralisation ....” (op. cit. p. 69), it issufficient to focus attention on firms. On the contrary, it "When imperialism launches a war of is precisely because they are the institutional aggression against such a country, all its effects of a process that the changing various classes can temporarily unite in a structure of global production and form of the national war against imperialism .... accumulation of capital, and consequent class “When imperialism carries on its relations can only partially be understood by oppression not by war, but by milder looking at the multinational corporations and means - political, economic and cultural - their activities. the ruling classes in semi colonial THE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION AND countries capitulate to imperialism, and THE NATION STATE the two form an alliance for the joint oppression of the masses of the people In order to grasp the nature of inter imperialist contradictions, it is not only necessary to sh ift focus from the institutions of Mao Tse-tung On Contradiction multinational corporations to modifications in (F.L.P. Peking 1967, p. 30) class relations, but also to understand the role 20 MULTINATIONALS AND THE NATION