At 23:30 01/01/00 +1100, Rob wrote:
.....
> Not quite Lenin, I'll admit, but no longer cozy Kautskyism either.
.....
>Any of that hold any water, ya reckon?
Surely.
It is necessary to shift the framework of analysis of political economy to
the global level.
The one place on the industrialised planet that could not publicly
celebrate the millenium was Seattle. Good. Rob is also right that the
*nature* of the war that NATO fought in Kosovo was deeply suspect. Not much
credibility there for the global gendarme.
But I would emphasise two points economically.
1) The accumulation of surplus must also be analysed at a global level. In
terms of exchange value it is a zero sum game, even if improved
productivity increases the volume of use values.
2) As I wrote in my notes on "imperialism", Lenin has been proved more
correct than Kautsky, in emphasising finance capital.
TNC's are essentially masses of finance capital stabilising themselves
across the globe and over time, despite the fluctuations of the business
cycle and of the exchange rates.
The concept also has the merit of seeing the phenomena as something more
profound than just a set of policies (although of course they have policies
to maximise their returns). They are the most abstract from of capital that
at present exists. But they are virtually untamed at the global level,
still less trussed up and ready for the oven.
But I agree with Hugh, (even though I suspect he may wish to leave me out
of the greetings to revolutionaries) that sometime in the next millenium,
and probably within the next century, we should be celebrating a socialist
thanksgiving, with turkey the main item on the menu.
Chris Burford
London
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
