|
well, stock has traded internationally since about 1970--which means that since 1970 the alignment of corporate location and ownership has meant nothing, the notion of nationally-based corporations means nothing, and so forth.
this is but one of many factors that prompts me to see in something like bushworld nothing but a reactionary type politics--not just in the old marxist sense of the term, but one that is about transforming the discourse of nationalism away from the myriad dynamics unfolding around it that tend to make nationalism obsolete.
i also see the nationalist-based critiques of this as more a symptom of the problems that faced "the left"--whatever that is (rightwing nonsense about it aside, of course--the are doing for the category of "the left" what stalinism did to the category "fascism" which came to mean "anyone we dont like" and nothing more)--they---maybe we--are caught between trying to generate a politically and descriptively compelling analysis of globalizing capitalism and fashioning new types of organization/politics around that on the one hand, and residuum of a more national-populist rhetoric on the other.
i mean what really *is* the problem with all this? that cnooc is based in china? why is that any better or worse than, say, the enormous bubble of real estate speculation driven by japanese money in the 1980s?
i understand why the arguments are being made by you, host, but less what you really see them as doing. parallel stuff was in f911 as well, concerning the saudis--and that was by far the least interesting or even useful segment of the film. because it seemed to traffic in conservative xenophobic logic rahter than offering anything like a counter to it.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|