Marty Hart-Landsberg observes and asks: So, at the risk of oversimplyfing, one approach calls for building opposition to the mobility of capitalism on the basis of the nation state and projects a vision of greater national regulation of capitalist activity through a restructured and more powerful state. The other approach argues that transnational corporate activity and the nature of our environmental and social problems makes this strategy unworkable. Instead it calls for transborder organizing to create new movements based on common interests that crosscut borders and nations. It also tends to support more decentralized means of controlling economic activity -- looking more to communities then states and coordinated community exchanges then nationally managed trade regimes. What do people think of all of this? Have I accurately represented the two approaches? Are there others? Have I created a false division? It seems to me that very different understandings of economic strategy flow from these two different positions. ________________ McClintock: A third approach is the formation and exercise of supranational state power which is inchoate in the EU, NAFTA, a few other experiments in regional integration, and in fragments in the UN. This approach recognizes the inability of nation states to control capital mobility (but still supports a stronger national state) but would argue that while transborder organizing by social movements is a necessary condition for an effective global economic strategy it is not sufficient: eg, how do worker & local government coalitions in Kenosha, Wisconsin, US and Chiapas, Mexico exert democratic control over North American money supply, fiscal policy, or trade policy of the NAFTA three, let alone nation states? As a subscriber to this third approach, and possibly ina minority on PEN-L (?), I don't see it as necessarily mutually exclusive to theother two approaches suggested by Marty. I have this awful feeling that I am running the gauntlet of Jim Devine and Trond who had an exchange on world government towards the end of last year. Go easy on me guys, it's back to the production line tomorrow, spring break's over.... "hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry, production rushes on" (1930s labor song) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Brent McClintock | | Economics | | Carthage College | THERE IS NO WEALTH | Kenosha, Wisconsin 53140 | BUT LIFE | USA | | Phone: (414) 551-5852 | John Ruskin | Fax: (414) 551-6208 | | Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
re: economic strategy and the state
mcclintockbrent%faculty%Carthage Mon, 21 Mar 1994 09:49:08 -0800
- economic strategy and the state Martin Hart-Landsberg
- economic strategy and the state Martin Hart-Landsberg
- Re: economic strategy and the state Doug Henwood
- Re: economic strategy and the state Doug Henwood
- Re: economic strategy and the state Jim Devine
- Re: economic strategy and the state Jim Devine
- re: economic strategy and the state mcclintockbrent%faculty%Carthage
- re: economic strategy and the state mcclintockbrent%faculty%Carthage
- re: economic strategy and the state Doug Henwood
- re: economic strategy and the state Doug Henwood
- re: economic strategy and the state mcclintockbrent%faculty%Carthage
- re: economic strategy and the state mcclintockbrent%faculty%Carthage
- re: economic strategy and the state Jim Devine
- re: economic strategy and the state Jim Devine
- re: economic strategy and the state Doug Henwood
- re: economic strategy and the state Doug Henwood
- Economic strategy and the state Trond Andresen
- Economic strategy and the state Trond Andresen