Die Neue Zeit
1st May 2007, 05:13
Now that someone raised the age-old question of nationalism, I have to look back at the current capitalist situation. A recent lecture that I took notes on pertained to consolidations and multinational monopolies (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65105) (my old thread on monopoly capitalism). One trend is the consolidation of suppliers to match the consolidation of their clients.
As much as nationalism has proven to be quite an obstacle to socialist development, has it also proven to be an obstacle to capitalist development, if one considers the state to be a business "supplier" of sorts (business licenses, subsidies, etc.)? The idea of having transnational states replacing the current nation-states means more uniform business regulations (less red tape), and more development (even if dealing with more powerful governments, close relations between Big Business and these governments would alleviate fears of excessive regulatory power).
The idea of having just one global government, although impossible under capitalism, would be the fulfillment of Kautsky's idealistic ultra-imperialism theory.
As much as nationalism has proven to be quite an obstacle to socialist development, has it also proven to be an obstacle to capitalist development, if one considers the state to be a business "supplier" of sorts (business licenses, subsidies, etc.)? The idea of having transnational states replacing the current nation-states means more uniform business regulations (less red tape), and more development (even if dealing with more powerful governments, close relations between Big Business and these governments would alleviate fears of excessive regulatory power).
The idea of having just one global government, although impossible under capitalism, would be the fulfillment of Kautsky's idealistic ultra-imperialism theory.