nationalism vs globalism (was Re: "not national but supranationalpowers that rule"

[Otto]

Empty rethoric. "Doug's wild assertions" you refer to were from Michael
Hardt and Antonio Negri:

"Antiglobalization is not an adequate characterization of the protesters in
Genoa (or Göteborg, Quebec, Prague, or Seattle). The globalization debate
will remain hopelessly confused, in fact, unless we insist on qualifying the
term globalization. The protesters are indeed united against the present
form of capitalist globalization, but the vast majority of them are not
against globalizing currents and forces as such; they are not isolationist,
separatist or even nationalist."
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0720-01.htm

And Roberts points are mostly valid and I share his critique of a simple
"Them or Us" strategy.

  Otto

> Seems to me that Rob's answers to Doug's wild assertions were well
> presented. I appreciate that he is willing to do this kind of service for
> the p-list.  My own inclination most of the time is why bother to even
> address such nonsensical ravings but such is a mistake and resorted to out
> of laziness.  Otto's objections might be seen by some as laudable. It
would
> be better if the disparity between rich and poor were reducible to a
greater
> degree. The idea of democratically representative government is of course
> only relative. Unfairness is going to remain in the world with or without
> globalization and globaliztion talks. These circumstaces however do not
take
> away from  the validity of Rob's points.
>
>                 P.
>