On Stephen P's question re Petras and Brenner here's the best I could come with: "The histroical fact is that the U.s., Africa, Asia and Latin america have a long history of several centuries of ties to overseas markets, exchanges and investments. Moreover, in the case of North america and Latin America, capitalism was "born globalized" in the sense that mosat of its early growth was based on overseas exchanges and investmnets. >From the 15th to the 19th centuries Latin america's external trade and investment had greater significance than in the 20th century. Similarly, one-thrid of English capital formation int he 17th century was based on the international slave trade. Born globalized, it is only in the middle of the 19th century that the internal market began to gain in importance, thanks to the growth of wage labor, local manufactures and most significantly a state which altered the balance of class forces between the domestic and overseas investors and producers." James Petras "Globalization:A Critical Analysis", Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol 29 no 1,1999,p3-37. Sam Pawlett
