Negri on globo

[Doug Henwood]

But if you blame capitalism, you can avoid the unpleasant issue of 
the nation-state. And if you like, you can take the next step, which 
is saying you can't really do anything politically until capitalism 
disappears, which is such a tall order that you might as well just do 
nothing and wait for the FROP to hit 0.

Doug

Max Sawicky wrote:


>Doug makes the right point, IMO.
>
>You could have the same problem under socialism.
>Imagine two nations, one rich, the second less so,
>and social benefits that paralleled their overall
>resources.  There would be the same interest in
>conditioning benefits on citizenship and related
>obligations.  Inequality breeds exclusion, and
>capitalism is not a necessary condition for
>inequality.
>
>mbs
>
>
>>  >Few things in social life are inevitable, but consider this - the
>>  >good things you've mentioned that some nation-states provide, like
>>  >social benefits, do depend on notions of citizenship, which depend
>>  >on notions of exclusion. The Scandinavian welfare state, as
>>  >admirable as it is, couldn't survive a regime of open borders. Nor
>>  >could even our very minimal welfare state in the U.S. survive free
>>  >traffic across the Rio Grande. It makes me uncomfortable to confront
>>  >these sorts of facts, but they're real. What do you make of them?
>>  >
>>  >Doug
>>
>>  Why attribute the limits of social welfare to the idea of
>>  citizenship, rather than to capitalism?  Capitalism limits the
>>  quantity and quality of social welfare, even with zero cross-border
>>  migration.
>>  --
>>  Yoshie