>>> dhenwood at panix.com 11/06/00 01:45PM >>>
Peter van Heusden quoted Michael Hardt:
> It is quite clear that
> in the various processes of globalization the locus of sovereignty
> has shifted away from the nation-state, at least in part, but it is
> not so easy to identity its new locus, if indeed it can be located
> at all.
This reads oddly in a time when U.S. imperial power is so mighty, whether operating unilaterally or through NATO or the IMF. Or are we talking about the apparently dispersed, centerless authority of capital - which is hardly a new problem of political economy? Just what's new about this new imperial model?
((((((((((((
CB: "Center "is of course a metaphor in this discourse. We are not really talking about a circle here. What we have is a ruling class, which is a tiny percentage of the population whole, and critically collaborating contingents of the working classes and petit bourgeoisie especially within the U.S. and Western Europe. The "whole population" in globalism becomes the population of the whole world. ( Whereas before, there was more reference to national ruling classes in relation to national populations) in the imperialist powers). The literal physical/geographical/geometrical location of the minority ruling class in relation to the masses can be scattered across the world, with maybe an especially high concentration inside the boundaries of the U.S. and Western Europe.