At 4:43 AM 5/8/95, glenn rayp wrote: >I agree, but shouldn't a leftist reply include >a "demystification of globalisation"? By all means let's hear more on this. In the frustrating radio Marx-a-thon I co-produced last week, there was much agreement among the assembled that "globalization," whatever that means exactly, had changed "everything," whatever that means exactly. Patrick Mason & I tried to challenge that, as would have Bob Fitch had he had the chance, but we were outtalked by the globalizers. The multinational corp *is* a historical innovation, yes, but is K'ism really profoundly more "global" than it was in the late 19C/early 20C? British foreign investment was far larger, in terms of GDP, than anything the US achieved at its peak or Japan today. Capital moved as it damn well pleased as did goods. The nation-state was less involved in the economy then than now; in the US we even had competing private monies, that Hayekian dream, until fairly late. Trond Andressen recently argued that we have to distinguish between the technology of globalization and the politics, largely cheering the former and hissing the latter. "Globalization changes everything" is a useful way of making K sound almighty and the masses, unions, and governments risibly weak. Is that really the case? Keynes's description of the "globalized" world pre-1914 at the beginning of the Economic Consequences of the Peace sounds uncannily like today's. It all fell apart in 1914, not to be put back together again until the last 10-20 years. I'm not advocating world war, obviously, but the "global" is as political, and therefore reversible, or manageable. It's not like gravity, is it? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
