This is quite different from an analysis of the regional/metropolitian configuration of the bourgeoise in North America (not just the US), including "foreign" capital, such as for example that of the Chinese capitalist "diaspora" that is systematically "colonizing" West Coast metropoli, to the extent that this capital becomes the dominant force in Vancouver, BC and an important factional player in Seattle, L.A. and San Francisco (where it is in turn split into two factions, 'pro-Taiwan' and 'pro-Beijing'). This by way of example, but to keep this in perspective, I believe British capital is still the single most important "foreign" colonizer in North America.
So it is important to add the "foreigners" to the "domestic" mix. Further, these "domestics" have their own _massive_ overseas colonies, such as Silicon Valley, "Big Energy" and Wall Street, so we have to see North America as a central "backbone" in a global grid of metropoles fought over by an ever-shifting, overlapping array of capital fractions. In short, a lot of work to analyze, and a moving target at that.
So "reductionist" caveats certainly apply here. It is not so simple as to say that the burst bubble is the subordination of SV to Wall Street. The latter is being hurt by the burst as well, after all, so it was more an alliance of convenience - now an "alliance" of pain. This caveat goes for the interpretation of mainstream politics as well - politicians are not simply bought by fractions of capital. They are (rather petty) capitalists themselves - political entrepreneurs on the hustle for markets for their ideological goods, a ground first plowed long ago in the days of Van Buren and Tammany Hall by the party of political entrepreneurship par excellence: the Democrats. The do have some room for maneuver in their own particular interests.
But it is possible to broadly map ruling class ideological trends to particular regions/metropoli. For example, Taiwan/Singapore for the extraordinarily secular and authoritarian ideological trends of the Chinese capitalist diaspora. Technocratic ideologies: California, North East USA, Japan, Chinese Diaspora lands, France, Germany, etc. (a lot of places). Militarism: radiating from the US South. Republican Party conservativism: various branches radiating out from Texas, apparently. Zionism: New York - Washington, D.C. Metro - _not_ Israel - as its _world_ platform. Emperor (now repackaged as "royal family") worship: Japan - note that this a carefully crafted (this is japan) ruling class ideology whose presentation is _absolutely_ worshipful - in sharp contrast to Britain, where the "royals" are a favored target of abuse. It is basically Japanese Zionism, a myth of a holy land and chosen people.
The above is a very rough cut. These (overlapping) ideological mappings can be particularly useful in explaining the differing behaviors of "lefts", mass movements, etc. in various metropoles and regions. It can explain, for pertinent example, why most American leftists don't actively and publicly take up the cause of the Palestinians in the same way they took up the cause of South African Blacks, even though the latter were never in danger of national extinction. Or why a leftist in another region might be more likely to take action outside the Northeast USA than within the one region where it is so desperately needed.
So we come full circle to the need for inter-regional left competition.
-Brad Mayer Oakland, CA
>Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 17:16:35 -0700
>From: John Gulick <jlgulick at sfo.com>
>
>Jonathon Weber argues in an article posted by Doug Henwood:
>
> >Dot-coms are dead. Tech companies are bleeding. Easterners gloat over
> >Silicon Valley's demise. But the West remains the land of opportunity.
>
>This is mostly a collection of cliches (cliches being refracted partial
>truths), recycled from a book Joel Kotkin wrote two decades ago,
>_California Inc_.
>
> >In the age of the Internet, people once thought "place" would be
> >irrelevant. But place - particularly the West, and especially Silicon
> >Valley - was at the heart of the business and technology revolution
> >that came to be known as the Internet Economy. That revolution is now
> >in retreat, and its struggle represents nothing so much as the
> >triumph of the Eastern establishment over the renegades of the West.
>
>Agreed, place matters. But is regional rivalry in the U.S. so simple as a
>West Coast-East Coast thang ? What about "Silicon Alley" and the "new media"
>sector in NYC ? The shards of Route 128 in Boston ? What about the fact that
>it is Texas and North Carolina capital cutting off California capital's
>power supply and taking over California capital's counting houses ? Isn't
>the U.S.' ruling class also divided along "bicoastal vs. heartland" lines ?
>Seems like the author's (again, partially accurate) construction of
>East-West rivalry is merely a useful tool for his warm embrace of (sic)
>"non-hierarchical entrepreneurialism". Believe me, the "West" is not of a
>piece about this -- I'm sure a "human potential entrepreneur" from Silicon
>Valley ("West") identifies a lot more with the Brookings Institute ("East")
>than he does a buckaroo robber baron like Charles Keating ("West").
>
>Brad Mayer, you're always good and provocative on this regional stuff. Any
>comments ?
>
>John Gulick