> But actually there is a key difference between the two
> "nomenklaturas". Whereas the American is directly subordinate to
> capitalism and its ruling class (in the US and internationally), the Soviet
> was only indirectly subordinate to the same class through the international
> nation-states system dominated by the USA as a state.
True, but isn't it interesting how both former superpowers (1) had military-industrial accumulation models, (2) explicit semi-peripheries in Europe and elsewhere, which gradually outgrew them, and (3) relied heavily on energy rents and raw materials, extracted from a huge natural landmass? By contrast, East Asia and the EU are notoriously short of raw materials, oil and huge military machines (thank the Goddess for this much), and converged in identical value-added silicon manufacturing strategies.
I'm beginning to think that David Harvey put his finger on the contradiction, namely that the Left needs a radical rethink of geopolitics -- not in the sense of fixed political boundaries, but the concrete analysis of the world-system; the step from cognitive mapping to a collective reshaping. This is too idealist a term, but I don't know of a better one just yet.
-- Dennis