Wood article in ATC

["Charles Brown" <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As I read the rest of the article,Wood's main point is not that bad. She is
criticizing Hardt and Negri for saying that "globalized" imperialism doesn't
rely on nation-state oppressive apparatuses, particularly that of the U.S.,
that global imperialism now must develop a global state. She's right on that
criticism. The article talks about that fact that capitalism relies on more
indirect state coercion than feudalism or slavery, but her main point is
actually that globalized imperialism _is_ dependent upon the U.S.
nation-state and military, and other nation states.

She says:
The main place of capitalist power is, of course, the United States.  But
what I've been trying to suggest here is that this imperial power depends
not only on its own domestic state but on the whole global system of
multiple states.  That means that every one of those states is an arena of
struggle and a potential counter-power. 

It hardly needs saying that struggles in the heartland of empire would have
the most effect.  But every state on which global capital depends is an
important target for its own oppositional forces and for international
solidarity.  Protests against the World Trade Organization or G8 summits can
certainly change the political climate.  But in the end, they're no
substitute for politically organized opposition to the power of capital
organized in nation states. 

^^^^^^^^
Her point in this article actually is the _opposite_ of her general thesis
regarding the indirect role of the state in capitalism as compared with
previous exploitative systems


Charles






~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.