>I believe that Kautsky projected a transnational superstate. This
>certainly is not the case today, where all we have is the USA and
>its dependent network. Like I said, No USA, no Empire - No Empire,
>no USA.
The relatively peaceful cooperation of the junior partners - the G7 less the USA - is rather different from what's gone before, no? And the fact that the US operates through multilateral institutions like the IMF and NATO is also different. The US dominates these multilateral institutions, but it doesn't go it alone exactly. And what about all those central bankers and their monthly meetings at the BIS? The executive committee (in formation) of a global bourgeoisie (in formation)?
>The paragraph that contains the above then hedges a bit on this statement.
Only in the sense that anything's possible. As the old Wall Street saying goes, never predict anything, especially the future.
> the breakup will come, but it won't be like the first World War,
>as a rivalry between capitalist states. Instead, a significant
>success of the working class struggle in key countries will begin
>this process. Not uncoincidentally, the great class struggles of
>the late classical period (1880's to WWI) also propelled the
>previous crackup, but this time the class character of this process
>will have a much higher profile.
>
>And to "Empire's Romes" -- Washington, Wall Street, and Hollywood --
>you might also want to add Silicon Valley. But I think we're going
>to find out that this Empire has only a wannabe Rome - a continent
>sized nation state making unilateral claim to global governance. It
>won't last long.
Optimist.
>Oh and I'm with Carl on Western "transparancy". Read up on Cisco
>(and by extension by degree, the whole of S.V.) in Barron's.
So the SEC is investigating Lucent, and there's a raft of shareholder lawsuits, because this is the norm of business behavior?
Doug