Hi Ray,
At 11:45 27/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
<<<<
(REH)
That is an interesting scenario Keith. Just a couple of questions. 1.)
Why will they riot over a change in currency? I don't doubt that you are
right but I don't get the point of why people would put themselves on the
line if they are already into destroying governments and the idea of the
state.
>>>>
Well . . . this is only a guess on my part. I may be totally wrong. Maybe
ordinary Frenchmen and Germans will calmly accept the new Euro currency. I
doubt it. We'll have to see.
But ordinary people are certainly *not* into "destroying governments and
the idea of the state". Most people accept the nation-state as a given --
as the most natural thing in the world -- as though nation-states have been
in existence for the whole of mankind's history. Most people feel very
strongly about their currency, thinking that it has some special status or
intrinsic validity -- when, in fact, it's only a useful token to assist the
trading of services and goods.
<<<<
(REH)
You make it clear that your sympathy is with "super-fuedal type states"
with vast amounts of cash (corporations) that have no connection to any
power except the power of trade and comparitive advantage. That to me is
the Aristo-crat model put through another system but meaning the same as
before when they controlled State governments through Kings.
Neo-Feudalism* maybe.
>>>>
I haven't any sympathy with "super-feudal type states". I'm just observing,
as most economic historians do, that business corporations are becoming as
large, and as economically powerful, as nation-states. They're not about to
take over all the functions of the nation-state, nor should they ever do
so, because we need a basic body of law that is (ideally) equal between all
individuals. Nation-states won;t disappear totally. They'll last for
centuries. It is their functions that will disappear -- so much so that
we'll call them different names in due course. However, if (as I think)
nation-states continue to decline in economic competence (not that they've
ever been all that clever), then my crystal ball tells me that the
judicatures will become more powerful in developed countries, even to the
point of defying governmental decisions if necessary. There are more than a
few straws in the wind that this is beginning to happen.
<<<<
(REH)
and 2.) What is this disconnect that always happens in conferences about
having to stick it to one group in order to make something happen. For
example in the most food conscious nation on the planet you want to stick
it to their farmers. Are you saying that the Poles and other Eastern
European countries are as careful with their produce as the people who are
close by? I'm not saying that they aren't but I am asking. Cheap is
sometimes just cheap and then there is the issue of pesticides and other
pollution.
>>>>
I think the Poles or the Hungarian farmers (at least those who want to
export to Europe) are well aware of pesticide issues and western European
standards of hygiene, etc.
<<<<
REH)
(Or is this just the old tendency that we used to notice in college about
the British proclivity for denying the existance of any point of view other
than their own.
>>>
Tut, tut . . . I think all nationalities think like that.
>>>
(REH)
The French were the first to speak of world Musics for example while
Britain still spoke of Music as Universal and the British version of that
Universal was the correct one. For example there couldn't possibly be a
Eurasian actor in multi-ethnic America to do the part for the Eurasian in
Miss Saigon. They had to have the English actor Jonathan Pryne because he
was the sole arbiter of the part according to Cameron McIntosh. McIntosh
was totally irrational about it. It had nothing to do with money. He
actually pulled the show from its premiere in America at a tremendous loss
only to be saved by Actor's Equity giving in to the British version of a
Eurasian in Vietnam.
I think these issues are much deeper than you indicate with economics just
being the surface most political of the issues. After all is said and
done, Locke, Adams, the Mills, Darwin, Bentham are all British while Marx
and Engels are both Germans. Or as Gertrude Stein divided up Europe in
her classic paen to the linguistic brothers of the First world war.
"We are two brothers who are brothers, we have the same father and the
same mother and as they are alive and kicking we are not orphans not at
all, we are not even tall, we are not brave we are not strong but we never
do wrong, that is the kind of brothers we are. And now that everybody
knows just what we are what each one of us is, what are we going to do
about it?.......I have an idea a beautiful idea, a fine idea, let us play a
play and let it be a murder." From Three Sisters who are not Sisters by
Gertrude Stein.
>>>
Nutty as a fruit cake, Gertrude Stein.
<<<<
(REH)
I would suggest an American solution to your police and army. Throw open
your borders to immigration and hire immigrants for those jobs that the
English are too snooty to take.
>>>>
We've been doing that ever since the 1950s when large numbers of West
Indians came over here to drive the buses in our cities, and to be
ambulance drivers and nurses in our hospitals. Then in the 60s and 70s
Gujuratis from India started manning many of our older textiles factories,
followed by Pakistanis, East African Asians . . . and, well, it goes on and
on . . . the latest entrants being from China, Turkey, and central Europe.
Altogether, we have received about 3,000,000 legal immigrants in the past
50 years out of a total population of about 55 million -- with about
2,000,000 indigenous people emigrating. In addition, though it's not known
for certain, it's considered that we have about a further 1,000,000 illegal
immigrants presently working on farms, building sites, restaurants, sweat
shops, and many (about 100,000) as nothing less than slaves in private
houses and brothels.
>>>
(REH)
Or you could hire closer to home. How about some Catholics from Northern
Ireland? They speak English. You could make a competition between the
Military and the police. Have one group Northern Ireland Protestant and
the other Irish Catholic. After a while you might even begin to feel like
American Indians.
>>>>
Several million Catholics have already come here from Northern Ireland and
Ireland itself over the past century or so. Apart from that, I don't
understand what you're saying above. But what I do know is that the police
in Northern Ireland (the Royal Ulster Constabulary) is composed of 92%
irredentist Protestants and that until the UK Government change the balance
to represent the population at large -- about 50:50 -- there'll never be
peace there. There's a sort of unnatural calm at present, but there'll be a
bloodbath sooner or later.
Keith H
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
