In response to Doug H.'s comments on globalization: First, I agree that recent technical innovations in communication and transportation are of an incremental character and are therefor relatively insignificant. Larry Summers is right about the steamship. Second, I agree that global economic activity, in and of itself, doesn't cause anything in particular. The issue which this raises, however, is whether there have been recent (post '74) changes in the international economy which have been more than incremental. I would like to nominate 2 for discussion. 1) The end of U.S. hegemony and the internationalization of the capitalist class. This change is associated with the rise of Europe, Japan, and the Asian Tigers, and consequent intensified international competition. It has been accompanied by the sundering of capitals from home nation states and the establishment of multilateral relations between international capitals and local states, thus truly internationalizing capital for the first time. This development has seen the internationalization of a free trade regime pursued through international institutions like the WTO, NAFTA, and the EU. 2)The integration of Eastern Europe, China, and formerly revolutionary TW states and movements into the capitalist world market. These changes can be seen as more than incremental. The test of their significance is whether or not they have substantially altered the conditions of class struggle and/or the balance of class forces. The answer to this question is indisputably yes. It is not globalization which has made things worse, but successful capitalist class struggle carried out under conditions of globalization which has made things worse. Is this observation pessimistic? Perhaps in the short run. But in the long run, this development will increase the salience of the international working class, Marxism, and ultimately social revolution. Terry McDonough
