The big bad boys on the international stage in the 1970s were western trans-national corporations (TNCs). In the 1980s criticism shifted to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Yet the reach and power of trans-national capital has been steadily growing.
By the early 1990s there were well over 35,000 TNCs with 170,000 foreign affiliates. The annual turnover of some of these companies is greater than the national income of several Third World countries combined.
Royal Dutch Shell ranks top of all with assets of US$100.8 billion and 127,000 workers. An estimated 73 million people are directly employed and many more employed by sub-contractors.
Whereas twenty years ago US owned firms dominated the top twenty list, there are now three Japanese concerns too: Hitachi, Matsushita and Toyota.
Lower down in the rankings there are also Brazilian and South Korean owned companies. This shows how capital even from non-imperialist countries needs to continually seek new arenas of accumulation.
However, five advanced capitalist countries account for 172 of the top 200 firms.
The internationalisation of capital has also paved the way for the internationalisation of production and distribution. So anything up to fifteen countries are involved in the manufacture of the humble Ford EsCUR.
This diversification is for several reasons. It may be to take advantage of lower wages, ununionised workplaces, tax breaks and access to "host" country markets. It also helps break strikes and curb workermilitancy while maintaining smooth production flows - there is always another source in another country.
In the textile and garment sector relocation to new countries may be because the country quota under the Multi-Fibre Agreement has been used up.
This growth in the affiliates of TNCs means that most world trade is taking place between these giant corporations rather than between countries. A conservative estimate is one-third of all world trade. However, most of this takes place between the advanced capitalist countries - the rest of the world is simply excluded from these investment flows.
While capital hungry and technology poor countries welcome TNCs, it is arguable how far they benefit. Their main attraction is that they are major employers. Profits are siphoned back to their "home" countries, not re-invested in the domestic economy - little or no technology and skills are passed on to local companies and workers.
Where countries have prospered by TNC investment such as South Korea, this has been under strict regulation of their activities and a strong state.
Some commentators see the relative power of these companies over Third world governments and international institutions such as the United Nations and World Trade Organisation as proof of the "eclipse of the nation state".
It is not so simple. TNCs need a spatial location to situate themselves - the nation state. They value it not for its boundaries but because of its historic function as arbiter between capital and labour. They value in the Are Chirac's eyes on monetary union - or on the Maghreb?
cles to be overcome for European capital to create adequate military forces and a unified foreign policy. Britain's favoured position of the USA's most servile vassal makes this even more of a struggle. The huge divisions evident in Cannes show how much "globalisation" has been over"host" state the repressive armoury of the police and army. They also need the backing of their state to secure market access and privileges and to intervene on their behalf. From the anti-expropriation United Fruit Company coup in Guatemala in the 1950's to construction contracts in Kuwait after the Gulf war, US trans-nationals have relied on Uncle Sam. Reports of the death of the nation state have therefore been much exaggerated.
There is only one response to global capital and that is global solidarity between the exploited and the marginalised. When the robber barons show scant concern for borders neither should workers.
It is through that re-discovery of solidarity - regardless of national, ethnic and gender divisions - stretching from the work-place to the community and back again, that we make initiatives against capitalism and for stated. Monetary union has had to be put back until 1999 - and even this first step Major has called "Eurocrap". National states remain the fountainhead of both economic policy and political action. With problems like this, who needs Euro-sceptics?