> >Is autarky necessarily the same as nationalism? Do, say, controls on
> foreign
> >exchange holdings necessarily lead to exclusionary politics? Why exactly
> >can't you have exchange controls *and* internationalism?
>
> Maybe you could, but the examples Patrick and others point to were
> nationalist.
>
> What small to medium sized poor country could really make a go of it
> on its own for any length of time? Maybe a big one with some
> technological resources, like Brazil or India, could for a while, but
> Zambia or Argentina? Cuba got by only because it was subsidized and
> defended for 30 years by the USSR. But now? At minimum, you'd need a
> bunch of countries to ally, take a common stance with their
> creditors, make some serious attempt at developing serious economic
> and social links, and arrange some sort of trading system with a
> division of labor.
.
I agree with all of this. But I'm a little confused: I thought you regarded
regional groupings of poor countries as a mask for local hegemony.
And what would Hardt & Negri say about this, given their belief that "the autonomy of the political" is a mere illusion?
Seth