> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
>
> 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 I 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.
Carroll replied:
> 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.
O'Connor goes out of his way to argue that the left should not be targetting "economic elites" in general, but rather should go out of our way to distinguish and target "US finance capital" and the "US government", because Europe and Japan are "opposed to U.S. globalization schemes." To argue that US capital is the main enemy and to argue that Europe and Japan are opposed to that enemy is, by any reasonable implication, to argue that the latter are to be preferred and enlightened if only in that they are opposed to the main enemy.
Just to distinguish US capital from European capital is to encourage a judgement as to which is better or worse, so arguing that nothing O'Connor said was "remotely suggestive" of such a judgement is not a reasonable statement. And in fact a number of folks immediately jumped into to argue for just such an understanding, seeing co-determination and some state ownership of banks as making Europe a more enlightened form of capital. So not only did I recognize O'Connor's suggestion of such, those who agreed with him recognized the same argument and tried to give examples to illustrate it.
You argued that opposing "US capital" gives a concrete strategy. If so, give examples of how O'Connor's strategy of targetting US capital would differ from the strategy he criticizes of opposing "economic elites" in general?
-- Nathan Newman