Angela,
Do you mean that global capital, as an "institution" is older than the nation-state? Spain and/or France of the late 15th century are usually regarded as the first modern nation-states, and it doesn't seem to me that there was anything that far back that could be considered global capital -- at least as I understand it. In fact, it seems to me that it was the power of the nation-state (specifically its military power) that allowed capital to spread beyond local boundaries. Was that not what mercantilism was about -- using the military power of the state to accumulate wealth?
Angela wrote:
>any benefits derived from so-called local control
>of economic policy are and always have been premised on the exploitation
>and immiseration of people, resources, etc in other places. it's always
>been a question of a global division of the spoils.>
That's a broad generalization. There are many cases where nation-states have been controlled (at least temporarily) by progressive forces who used the power of the state for the economic and social benefit of its citizenry. And now that global capital has become so powerful, the nation-state is the only institution strong enough restrain it -- through capital controls, etc.
Adam