'Globalization' and 'Anti-globalization' are the watchwords of the left at the moment. Whole 'umbrella' groupings are springing up, which simply accept the notion that capitalism has now become more powerful than the worlds nations; even John Pilger seems to accept it, but the uneasy question nags that it might not be true.
It is strange that the most bourgeois umbrella group campaigning on this platform, 'Globalise Resistance', was set up by the Marxist-Trotskyist SWP, which still nominally subscribes to an ideology developed between aprox 1840-1940 which is absolutely insistent that capitalism is ultimately dependent upon the nation- state.
Does the SWP, and 'Globalise Resistance', lack the insight to see that the flood of neo-capitalism which has emerged in the last decade, is the result of the collpase of the USSR and CMEA (Comecon) in 1989-91 ? Sometimes rampant, sometimes regulated, the markets that the fall of soviet socialism opened up have produced something of a new gold-rush a la the Klondike, but the state is still there, in the shape of NATO above all. The 'Globalise Resistance' conference of April this year was notorious for stifling an attempt to discuss the matter of China. In the midst of the USA spy-plane scandal, A speaker had attacked what he called the 'Butchers of Bejing', but then our so-called Trotskyists resorted to blatant Stalinism by refusing to allow a rebuttal of this view. Admittedly, the Chinese regime is far from pleasant, but just as with the USSR in 1991, no one has asked the question of what will happen if it falls. Even the current Coca-Colafied communism currently holding power will cede to something much, much worse if it goes. 'Globalisation' will occur for real...
Neo-capitalism is far from being freed of state control, no matter how disordly it gets. Why are the current leftist intellectuals and the SWP trying to promote an opposite view ?