JOHAN GALTUNG ( 1) Through SR inequities may yield but inequalities wi/1 remain. There are many types of inequalities, e.g. due to different factor endowment, different ability to mobilize creativity of the masses, different levels of mobilitazion of the population in general for action, and so on. Self-reliance takes only care of inequality insofar as it is interaction-induced, e.g. trade and/or spin-offs from ve.rtical division of labor, or externalities in general. Throùgh SR center-periphery relations will be eut down (and if the center reacts sufficiently angrily it may quickly be eut down to almost zero), but that only guarantees that whatever inequality remains is not interaction-induced. Consequently there is also an argument for mechanisms of global redistribution that will "take from the rich and give to the poor" at the Sijl111:l time as the poor become more autonomous. The politics of coordinating this will be extremely complex, to say the least, and the complexity will serve as an argument in favor of small revisions of the present system whereby the Center wlll promise some transfers (not only stabilization of the terms of trade) in exchange for keeping the present (inter)national division of labor. (2) Through SR at the collective level, and also at the national level local exploitation may solidify because the basis is unchanged. The term "self-reliance" should not be used unless these is genulne mass involvement. National and collective selfreliance should be seen as means towards this goal. As such they are necessary, for local units would be much too exposed to, say, ~ransnational corporations unless there is some national protection available, just at the single Periphery country would need colletive solid~rity in order to bring about changes in the global structures of trade, politics, military action, culture and communication. The argument ls not in favor of a world divided into small, local comniunities, but• in favor of a world where more power, initiative and better level of needs-satisfaction are found in the periphery at all levels of organization: individuals, groups, local communities, coun~ries, regions. What ls not wanted is the use of the rhetoric of self-reliance to blur contradictions between local elites and the people in general. (3) Through SR organic ties between units will be reduced. SR should not be interpreted to mean isolationism but redirection of interacion in general. as argued many times above. , Nevertheless, the argument that the world might be eut into two halves, the former Center and the former Periphery carries a certain weight - not because that would happen, -but because
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==