> Woj: World capital does not exist. It is an abstraction invented by
certain
> intellectuals to have something to write about, sell their books, get
> tenures, etc. Something that does not exist does not have interests.
Gulick:> "World capital" is certainly an abstraction, not a collective
agent with
> interests. But writing about it, well or poorly, is hardly likely to get
one
> tenure...
Yeah. WS uses "abstraction" in the vulgar sense. I agree that it is an abstraction, in the sense in which "abstraction" and "knowledge" are closely related terms, if not virtual synonyms. All knowledge is abstract.
Clearly it is in the "interest" of (say) Walmart that China have access to the oil I needs. In other words, "world capital" now points towards a system of abstract relations that (as is always the case under capitalism) link "interests" that are both shared and opposed. If the former is dominant among the major powers, there may be (probably is) much international tension but nothing approaching the great conflicts of the first half of the century. This is part of what the abstraction , "world capital," names. I think it is an accurate abstraction, and that anyone who does not recognize that makes him/herself incapable of understanding contemporary reality. (WS's undisciplined embrace of Ockham's razor often blinds him.)
Carrol