is linked to politico-economic effects, since thedivision of labour is impossible to achieve without the homogenization ofcultural resources.
But, we should make further steps. Nicos Poulantzas, whopresents a detailed list of differences between the meanings and forms of spaceand time in capitalism and in precapitalist period, puts an emphasis on the “economicunity”, unified market of capitalism, generalized commodity norms backed up bythe circulation of capital: for him, the robust link between capitalism andnation means that capitalism must operate across national state (Poulantzas1978). Thereare lot of discussions on the problem of inter-nationality: why differentnational-states occur in the space of “world-society”? Could we have ahomogenized world-society without the fragmentarization of national states? Are there any differences betweennational and international markets? Some endeavours are trying to solvethe problem by dividing the politics and economy; in accordance with this, thepolitics and economy are separated without the opportunity of structuralinterpenetration and the economiccoercion proves to be impossible. Some other views suggest the initial competitivity between nationsresulting in conflictsS1 (see Helleiner, 2002, Levi-Faur, 1997, Porter,1990, Pozo-Martin, 2007). But, even if this account on the originalcompetitivity envisages the “creation” of enmity, it reverses the logic ofexplanation: the processes of nationalistic “othering” and competence should beexplained by the laws of capitalism, that is, it should be mediated by theselaws and not vice versa. Themarket-based competition was proposed by important authors as the powerfulchannel for the pacification of enmities. Liberalism especially opted for thenorms of concurrence and world-exchange as the radically non-violent path forthe cosmopolitan togetherness and coordination. In line with this emerged liberalnationalism that made an effort to reconcile the logic of modern individualism withthe collective patterns of nationhood and advocated the integration ofheterogeneous members (minorities, etc.
) of given national communities by themarketized competition. But, the concurrence involves the situation of “being-against”in the acquiring and stabilizing of commodified-monetarized wealth. Thiscategory, which embeds social measure of power, indicates politico-economiccoercion and violence: the nationalizedwealth is not there by chance. Such liberals (or “possessive individualist”) asLocke, affirm the war against “wasteS2 ” (see especially Neocleous 2011) in order to expand the volume ofnational wealth: this war is tied to the destruction of indigenous people whoare accused of the original lack of industrious attitude and predeterminedidleness. The S1Ako sereferise na neke pokusaje, valjalo bi napomenuti konkretno na koje se toodobosi. S2Nisamsiguran da razumem – waste obicno znaci smece, otpad – ali ovde je vise kaogubitak vremena npr.
Dakle ako se kapitalizam bori protiv gubitka vremena, zbogmasimalizovanja ucinka, ne protiv otpada, to onda treba nesto drugacije reci. i gubitak vremena, da, ali ineiskoriscavanje resursa, dakle, protiv neiskoriscenosti uopste, to je inacetermin Neoclousov, zato smo ga stavili sada pod navodnike na svim mestima
