Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>
> And, Carroll, you should try reading, since my point was that US and
> European capital are so intermingled - Daimler-Chrysler, Ford-Volvo,
> cross-investments and joint ventures, etc. that making such distinctions is
> meaningless.
We've still got communication problems. You may or may not be right on what you claim was your point -- but I claimed that you ascribed to Jim O'Connor a perspective that was not in his post. So his post can no more be wrong about European capital than it can be wrong about Incan Art -- because neither is mentioned.
O'Connor writes:
<< The US government and US finance capital are or should be our targets, not "governments and economic elites" in general. I like much of what he has to say, especially about international labor solidarity, but this idea remains much too abstract unless we understand the (rough) equation between globalization=neoliberalism=US imperialism. >>
And then you write
<<None of these are sufficient, of course, but the idea that European corporate elites are somehow more enlightened in their approach to globalization is ridiculous. Their idea of a multi-polar world is merely one of spheres of exploitation, not one that empowers developing nations or peoples or the global working class. >>
Where is the connection? No one on this list, including O'Connor, has ever claimed anything remotely suggestive of the idea that "European corporate elites are somehow more enlightened." The idea belongs strictly to you, and I wonder where you got it.
Or maybe I am misreading. Maybe you are claiming that U.S. corporate elites are more enlightened, and to talk about them without making that point is, from your point of view, implicitly to say that European Capitalists are philanthropists. ????
Carrol
Carrol