> So I think working people have no choice but to
> try to form global resistance organizations and aim for control globally
> too. And this is a good thing. Why would it be bad to break down the
> national/international distinction? Does Bello fear some sort of
> mongrelization? Why shouldn't it be a good thing for cultures to mingle and
> mesh and form new cultures? And let's remember that Marx said "Workers of
> the WORLD unite." Still a good and worthy slogan. We have to be careful
> not to encourage nationalism very much (in some poor nations, nationalism
> might still have radical content), since the powers that be are happy when
> we hate the rest of the world.
>
> Michael Yates
=============
KM's "soundbite" seems to be a call for a different form of cosmopolitanism and cosmopolitics afaict:
"We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which free trade would establish between the nations of the Earth would hardly be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market."
So there's no necessity in casting this as either/or when both/and would be a greater spark to the imagination.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind." [Bertrand Russell, iirc]
Ian