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

[Paul Mackin]

Otto wrote:

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

Apologies to Doug then. It's these two guy who make the wild assertions Rob was
refuting.

        P.

>
>
> "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.
> >