Some thoughts on the last few days' discussion: 1. I see no contradiction between nationalism and internationalism - though I do between chauvinism and internationalism, and between nationalism and "transnationalism" in the sense of international capitalism. I call myself an internationalist nationalist without blushing. I take nationalist to mean "if we don't look after ourselves, no-one else will", rather than "bugger the rest of the world". The most important way to support other people's causes is to fight for your own cause. The reality of "internationalism" is not some vague monolithic international revolution: it is that local struggles around the world support each other. 2. Isn't the conclusion of my free trade and investment analogy the crux of the argument between Max and Sid regarding the nature of the EU? That is, the EU can be socially progressive only if its "federal" government has the power and will to redistribute incomes and resources between EU regions. Does it do so significantly now? If not, is that for structural reasons (as the "Ecologist" article and I think Sid would suggest) or for short-term political reasons (as I think Max would suggest)? 3. What has changed in capitalism? Bill Burgess gives the answer that it used to be able to afford some concessions but can't now because of falling profitability etc. I can't accept that: it is some of the most profitable companies that are laying off the most staff. And it was during the 50s and 60s when those concessions were being made that we had some of the most vicious industrial attacks and socially reactionary governments. An alternative explanation is that the *interests* of capitalism have changed. Keynes pointed out a congruence of interests between worker and employer in a closed economy: that workers were also the employer's only customers. (There remained plenty of differences in interests of course!) That gave capitalists (as a class) a vested interest in the welfare state, higher wages etc. To the extent the closed economy has opened up (the beginning of this whole debate!), their interest in these "concessions" has declined. That will only change again if they saturate the labour resources of the world economy - and haven't found another planet full of labour to exploit by then! Or if we find some way to limit the openness of national economies - which incidentally applies whether they are capitalist or socialist. 4. I found the debate between Terry and Ken on how to create a (New Zealand sized!) Socialist Utopia in the world economy interesting. I'd interpret the outcome of the discussion to be that it would be very difficult for a socialist (let alone communist) economy to retain its nature while remaining at least partly open to trade and investment in the current world economy. I'd broaden that to make a similar statement about relatively progressive capitalist economies. Such economies were at least thinkable in the 1950s and 60s, but apparently aren't now. What's changed? Bill Rosenberg /-------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | | P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-------------------------------------------------------------------------/
