As a heuristic and pedagogic device, I have found Charles Brown's frequent reminders of the links between the imperial center and the periphery most useful. He usually applies it to the question of economic success. When you speak about capitalist "prosperity," it is necessary to factor in Congo, Haiti, Nigeria, Philippines, etc., when you speak about Sweden and South Korean "successes". Oops. Take that back. I just meant Sweden--at least for the time being. Wojtek, by the way, has also made the same kinds of points. It is most instructive.
Capitalism is a world system (use the word globilization if it suits you--it's okay by me). The "old mole" is not yet visible in the USA, but it is clearly visible in the former Soviet Union which is about to become the Soviet Union, by all appearances. It is also visible in South Korea where the workers are setting an example for the rest of the world's working class. No wonder the spotlight is on Clinton's troubles, rather than the workers movement over there. It might give GM workers the wrong idea.
One of the legacies of the old left that we have to drop is this narrow, nationalistic perspective. We have to remember that these national boundaries are very arbitrary. Capital flows here and there and the capitalist class is extremely internationalist, except when the contradictions begin to mount (ie, Malaysia, Hong Kong). We have to remain internationalist. How this will translate into practical politics, I am not sure. But in the meantime, if you look at the class struggle from a global perspective, we are entering a fascinating new period.
Louis Proyect
(http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)