I had written: > > >>*If* the "main contradiction" was between capitalism and socialism I > would agree Lenin's approach needs transplant surgury.<< and Jim Devine replied: > > I don't know about "main contradiction," but the cold war sure did dominate > the world political economy from about 1946 until 1989. Things have changed > a lot since then, suggesting that the end of the cold war had major effects. I was trying to be a little ironic with "main contradiction". The point is that some argued that now that socialism existed (USSR and/or China), the struggle between it and capitalism eclipsed Lenin's original 'age of imperialism' approach. And very sincerely: there have been big events since 1989 but I'm interested in what you see as the _basic_ change in world politics. > Intensified competition, yes, but between nation-states? US auto workers > working for US-based companies, for example, used to compete with Japanese > auto workers working for Japan-based companies. But now they compete with > workers employed by foreign factories of US-based companies, while > Japan-based companies hire US workers. Something has changed. > I agree there are changes, including more of the inter-penetration that always existed to some degree (was it GM or Ford that had big factories in Dresden, Germany during WW2, for example). I'd like more reasons on why this process is seen to be a _qualitative_ change relative to the link between capital and national states. > The trade laws do include protectionist measures, but the long-term trend > since WW II has been for these to go away. So far, there is no sign of that > trend being reversed. (It's intensified with NAFTA and GATT.) True, but the trade blocks (EU, NAFTA) are a form of competition between those groups of imperialist countries. And if/when there is a "crash" it might not take long for these agreements to come unravelled. > I interpret the expansion of NATO as part of Clinton's effort to sell more > US arms. Ironically, it also undermines the effectiveness of NATO as an > organization, by bringing in some relatively weak countries. I guess the > point is to sell them arms but keep them from using them against Russia. I think this explanation is much too narrow. Perhaps this reflects a difference on how big the changes since 1989 have been. I'm sure we do agree that the S8 is really the G7 with Russia there for window dressing. Bill Burgess
