Bombings/globalisation?

Ron Press anclondon at gn.apc.org
Tue Apr 25 21:20:53 MDT 1995


Hi

Just a few comments on globalisation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: wpc at cs.strath.ac.uk
	 How can we attack, for example, the World Bank and IMF
	 themselves
when they are units conceived to extend the credit derived from
the wealth of the first world, to the rest of the world.

			  <<<<<<<<<<<<<

This is a bit simplistic. The wealth is derived not from the first
world but from the workers of the first world and from the second
and third world in reverse order. Mostly the third least the
first.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Cc: wdrb at siva.bris.ac.uk The circuits of capital have escaped the
fetters of the nation state. The division of labour is now so
transnational that Imperealist war would threaten economic
collapse for all. The development of the means of destruction mean
that such a war would threaten the existence of the bourgoies.
With Japanese, US and European transnationals having significant
constant capital and markets on four continents what is the
'national interest' of the ruling class of one country?

				       <<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Although I agree generally with the statement about a hot war
between the first world states the competition between them is
still viscious. The Yo Yo of currencies, the trade wars between
the USA and Japan are real enough.

The threat of war is not past. There seem to have been a rash of
wars over the last 10 years.

There is also a growing tendency for a so called Black economy to
develope in parallel with the globalisation. Any thoughts?

Is the globalisation of the world economy in any way linked to the
growing unreason in the world? It seems to me that when there is a
growing alienation of the population from the powers that govern
their lives they turn to violence.  In a bar when one cannot win
the arguement then out come the fists as a substitute for reason.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Michael D. Damore" <Subject: Re: oklahoma bombing -Reply
Mime-Version: 1.0

C'mon... are we not abusing the term "anarchy" here like so many
in the political mainstream do.  "Anarchy" is not chaos, and vice
versa, nor is anarchy the point where the Left and Right meet.

		   <<<<<<<<<<<<<
 I agree that the term Anarchy has the conotation of a political
 philosphical system. Perhaps disruption or chaos is a better
 term.

However I do feel that the politically frustrated have
historically turned to violent disruption of society. If you
cannot win then let nobody else win either. Under the cloak of
chaos what evil deeds may be done. This is what was happening in
South Africa during the build up to the democratisation of that
society. Gatch Buthelezi still threatens chaos.

Ron Press


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list