Eric raises the question of the creation of hegemony by international capital vs national capital. I want to first observe that to unselfconsciously discuss as we have been doing national vs. international capital IN THE METROPOLE is one candidate for the indicators of qualitative change. Perhaps another is that capital is being categorized by its relationship to the international economy rather than along some other axis. The concept of "competitiveness" as a guide to national policy is the strategy under which national policy is subordinated to the ideological hegemony of international capital. This notion is very effective in overcoming the oppositions that Eric observes by identifying the national interest with effective (i.e. profitable) participation in the international market. Competitiveness is also effective in that it provides an umbrella for two different strategies. One is Jim D's competitive austerity of which the U.S. and Britain are the exemplars. [Indeed, it would not be inaccurate to describe it as the Anglo-Saxon Strategy.] The other promotes competitiveness through the control of monopolized markets, technology and scarce skills. This is the so-called "high productivity" strategy. The proceeds of a successful implementation of this strategy are to be divided between capital, labor and social services. It hopes this income will maintain local demand. This might be labelled the Continental Strategy. The problem is not that this strategy cannot work (it's working very well in Ireland at the moment) but that it requires extraordinary luck to remain at the cutting edge of technology and skills. Sooner or later the high productivity economy is overtaken by competition and the austerity strategy imposed. Terry McDonough
