is linked to politico-economic effects, since the
division of labour is impossible to achieve without the homogenization of
cultural resources. But, we should make further steps. Nicos Poulantzas, who
presents a detailed list of differences between the meanings and forms of space
and time in capitalism and in precapitalist period, puts an emphasis on the “economic
unity”, unified market of capitalism, generalized commodity norms backed up by
the circulation of capital: for him, the robust link between capitalism and
nation means that capitalism must operate across national state (Poulantzas
1978).

       There
are lot of discussions on the problem of inter-nationality: why different
national-states occur in the space of “world-society”? Could we have a
homogenized world-society without the fragmentarization of national states? Are there any differences between
national and international markets? Some endeavours are trying to solve
the problem by dividing the politics and economy; in accordance with this, the
politics and economy are separated without the opportunity of structural
interpenetration and the economic
coercion proves to be impossible. Some other views suggest the initial competitivity between nations
resulting in conflictsS1  (see Helleiner, 2002, Levi-Faur, 1997, Porter,
1990, Pozo-Martin, 2007). But, even if this account on the original
competitivity envisages the “creation” of enmity, it reverses the logic of
explanation: the processes of nationalistic “othering” and competence should be
explained by the laws of capitalism, that is, it should be mediated by these
laws and not vice versa. The
market-based competition was proposed by important authors as the powerful
channel for the pacification of enmities. Liberalism especially opted for the
norms of concurrence and world-exchange as the radically non-violent path for
the cosmopolitan togetherness and coordination. In line with this emerged liberal
nationalism that made an effort to reconcile the logic of modern individualism with
the collective patterns of nationhood and advocated the integration of
heterogeneous members (minorities, etc.) of given national communities by the
marketized competition. But, the concurrence involves the situation of “being-against”
in the acquiring and stabilizing of commodified-monetarized wealth. This
category, which embeds social measure of power, indicates politico-economic
coercion and violence: the nationalized
wealth is not there by chance. Such liberals (or “possessive individualist”) as
Locke, affirm the war against “wasteS2 ” (see especially Neocleous 2011) in order to expand the volume of
national wealth: this war is tied to the destruction of indigenous people who
are accused of the original lack of industrious attitude and predetermined
idleness. The

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 S1Ako se
referise na neke pokusaje, valjalo bi napomenuti konkretno na koje se to
odobosi.

 S2Nisam
siguran da razumem – waste obicno znaci smece, otpad – ali ovde je vise kao
gubitak vremena npr. Dakle ako se kapitalizam bori protiv gubitka vremena, zbog
masimalizovanja ucinka, ne protiv otpada, to onda treba nesto drugacije reci.

i gubitak vremena, da, ali i
neiskoriscavanje resursa, dakle, protiv neiskoriscenosti uopste, to je inace
termin Neoclousov, zato smo ga stavili sada pod navodnike na svim  mestima