You make solid and empirically tenable points, but then most Americans (certainly not all) see themselves as the subjects of whatever they take globalisation to be (if occasion requires they think about it at all). Which might influence how one might react to the thing. Most of the rest of the world (I actually include Oz) see themselves as the object of it (there's a fair bit of empirical evidence in support of that, too). So they're getting grumpy first. Cometh the day of the credit squeeze and the evacuating foreign currency in America - the day when the government suddenly tries to leave rural America to fend for itself, when a myriad small business people hit the wall, and when even more myriads of credit-card dependent workers can't afford the cost of living (all of which is already happening even in blessed corners like my own), well, gawd knows, really ... I really do think recent electoral events in this country do point to the collective smelling of a rat, and as clearly demanded a reversion to welfare state practices as the, ahem, democratic process allows.
Only 3.34 am and I've blown my quota already - guess I'll have to work now ...
Rob.
>In the United States, we observe continued dismantling and
>dissolution of such Welfare State practices as existed, so
>it must be that the level of crisis necessary to sustain
>the Welfare State is insufficient. In fact, the formation
>of the global capitalist metastate might be expected to so
>firmly secure the bourgeoisie, that a full reversion to
>fundamental liberalism, which allows for imperialism[1],
>slavery[2], famine[3], and outright genocide[4], could be
>attempted.
>
>I don't think that will happen, because of the famous
>contradictions, but evidently we have not reached the point
>where a significant preponderance of the bourgeoisie smell
>anything in the wind. It seems evident that the normal
>politics of the system, e.g. party organization, elections,
>interest groups, and so on, have not worked for fans of the
>Welfare State absent serious threats to the system. In
>history, the factors which have produced the Welfare State
>so far have been war and the threat of war abroad and
>radical anti-capitalist organizing and activities at home.
>And this makes sense, because from the bourgeois point of
>view, which is one of aggressive accumulation, there is no
>point giving away anything you don't have to.
>
>--
>[1] _Mission_civilisatrice_, Manifest Destiny, etc., down to
>the present humanitarian missions too numerous to name.
>
>[2] Justified by John Locke and observed in various parts of
>the West until the latter half of the 19th century.
>
>[3] Ireland and India, for example.
>
>[4] North American and Argentine Indians and late 19th-century
>Congo.