henry wrote:
>The problem is that nationalism and its political vehicle: the soveriegn
>state, are the only effective combatants against capitalism since the
>dissolution of the Comintern and remain so today.
well, here you are remarkably close to the position advocated by Chris, even if pursuing a different conclusion.
I wonder whether there is a difference between the support of petty nationalisms and big nationalisms? for instance, on what basis can one, if you want to accede the terms of nationalism, differentiate between 'secessionist movements' and 'legitimate nationalisms'? that's a question that can't be answered I think, though I'd dearly love to see someone try without engaging in infinite regressions or assertions of the ineffability of 'nationality'.
but, henry, I disagree strongly, for the reason that capitalism is not afraid of nationalism: it increasingly relies on nationalism to ensure competition between pools of labour. the only people who are frightened by the collapse of nationalism, and who reach for nationalism to dredge together their dwindling power, are national capitalists in economically weaker countries confronting the IMF's prescriptions for 'opening up the markets' (as in, diminishing the monopolies of the local bourgeoisie). workers are not qualitatively worse off because of internationalisation; they are worse off because this internationalisation of capital has proceeded without an internationalisation of labour.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au