Chaz wrote:
> Well, you aren't quite sure that it wouldn't in some cases.<
we can't be sure of anything, without our crystal balls.
> Think of it this way. One of the clearcut reorganizations of regional
hegmonic blocs in a manner that imperialism considers in its favor is
NAFTA, no ? This seems the opposite of protectionism for Mexico, Canada
and Brazil, et al. So, to negate this is some sense would involve a
"protectionism" from neo-free trade (FT). <
i'm not sure it's so simple. what would be better for the workers of the region: protectionism or integration? NAFTA was kind of a faux integration, ie., it was a trade agreement which is still auspiced by the 'protectionism' of US capital via the domination of the US currency. i still think there are other more interesting paths to pursue, including regional agreements between workers' organisations, for instance. it's also interesting that (re max's comments on the US) the passage of NAFTA might well have been a factor in subsiding the chauvinism in the US.
> It is especially my role as a Marxist in the U.S. to oppose "my own"
capitalists first, no ?<
umm... how can that be a rule for you, but not a rule for others (as in your formulation below)? in any case, distinguishing national capitals from (?) other national capitals and global capital is not where i would begin to establish the framework for a politics on these issues. acknowledging that the surplus, even that being pumped out of one place, is not for all that a national surplus -- it's already global, if only in the sense of the circulation of 'dead labour' and the capital that is 'invested'.
> A better phrasing from my standpoint would be neo-colonial national
liberation and self-determination in a dialectical unity with proletarian
internationalism, but , you know , people start calling you dogmatic when
you talk like that.<
not dogmatic, but it sure vies with derrida for incomprehensibility. <g> in any event, 'national liberation' is no longer going to have the anti-capitalist qualities (if it ever really did) that you or i would like to see. there was a time when dogmatic marxists regarded national liberation struggles as an attempt to enhance the power of a local petty bourgeoisie. whether as cabral remarked, this struggle would lead inevitably to the "suicide" of the p-b, or whether it merely becomes a means to decompose working class organisation remains a moot point. there is certainly little evidence that there is any developmental path available to all, and the passage through so-called national liberation seems to be, at best, the formation of regional capitalist hegemonies and, at worst, the prelude to conflicts proxied variously through religious or 'ethnic' wars, with IMF statelets ranged all the ways in between.
Angela _________