Globalists vs nationalists

If one looks at the economic history of imperialism one sees that it
is dominated by economic nationalism. The sterling 'free' trade zone
imposed tarriffs and quotas on products which entered its zone. Taking
into account that the land mass encompassed 1/4 of the worlds earth
surface, the economic nationalism of Britain ensured that for instance
Zambia never had one school for black children when part of the
British Empire or India a textile industry.

The roots to economic nationalism are the attempt by private
capitalists to control their territory. One could not have accepted
that during the first phase of globalisation, we had free trade as the
British Empire imposed high tarriffs to those who wern't part of it as
a way of maintaining ecnomic dominance of its corporation.

Two world wars later and the collapse of the European powers meant
they would start to be dominated by the rising economic power, the
USA. Up until the early 1970's economic nationalism was the
pre-dominant philosophy of South Korea, Japan, germany, Britain etc
who were able to re-build their economies from scratch on the basis of
US loans. When the crisis kicked in economic nationalism was replaced
with economic globalisation or free trade theory.

In the 1970's the percentage of the worlds western economies dominated
by large transnationals amounted to around 25%. By the year 2002 this
had grown to around 65%. The rise of free trade theory and economic
deregualation as opposed to economic nationalism and state ownership
has been in accordance with the growth of the transnationals as the
main vehicles of economic existence. the creation of the WTO a body
whose existence and meeting are top secret but whose powers are
supra-national aims to harmonise the global irregularites of the old
nation states and their previous tarriff regimes rooted in the
economic nationalist past.

But just as the British Empire blocked the entrance of new competitors
so the WTO globalists aim to bankrupt all possible opponents. Take the
example of Argentina. It was the IMF's best pupil. It followed all the
rules of the Structural Adjustment Programmes. All its major state
industries and dollar raising enterprises were deregulated. Now the
country ie its people have to eat concrete, whereas before they
enjoyed beef. Free trade theory for Argentina implies collapse,whilst
for Wall Street it implies provisional profit.

The left under the guise of being internationalist has placed the cart
before the horse. It thinks internationalism is prograssive. Any
internationalism no matter what. The fact that Ford can produce a car
in 20 countries and sell it to 180 implies 'progress'. The fact that
British slave traders travelled to Africa by ship and now they can go
by plane also defines progress. But whose progress are we talking
about. Progress is specific bound by class boudnaries. The progress of
the transnationals is detriment to humanity. the progress of Ford is
detriment to Russias Lada car company. Progress for one company
implies collapse of the other.

Imperialist globalisation doesn't lead to progress but a furthering of
decay on a global scale. If the British Empire was challenged twice by
German imperialism to a duel and was weakened beyond belief by the
anti-colonial revolutions of the post-war world, the American Empire
by preaching free trade but imposing economic nationalism is leading
to the collapse of its outer periphery. Implosion can only be averted
by expansion and military conquests.

But military conquests cannot lead to stopping decline in the short
term, they actually ensure decline is further embedded. Hilters
conquest of the Ukraine did not bring about a boom. Hence Americas
conquest of the Middle east will bring about dislocation on an immense
scale.
Globalists, free traders and economic nationalists are heading into
the abyss.
vngelis