You seem to be saying that the nation state (and probably democracy as a binding tool) can’t exist alongside true capitalism as the emergence of institutions of political power leads inevitably to crony capitalism… I think you are right. The temptation to use economic influence to gain the force multiplier of political influence, and vice versa, is irresistible.
Is it possible for economic power to co-exist with local political power without any interaction/interface at all?
Thankyou for the links :-)
Perhaps you might enjoy this in return: http://www.ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/documentos/323.pdf
which clarifies to what extent the problem is always also one of realpolitik- you can’t have (successful)independent economic policy unless you have the bargaining chips/alliances to back it up…
“Already in January 1948, R.H. Hadow, Counselor for Latin American affairs at the British Embassy in Washington, speculated with an ‘Anglo — American squeeze-play’ to retard or kill the Argentine industrialization plan”
“Nevertheless, the assumptions underlying both the Argentine and the British points of view must be brought out into the open, because they reveal an asymmetry of power which is the only real reason why Argentina’s policy objectives must be considered errors. The same mistake has been committed all too many times in Argentine history, partly because the realities of power politics are often knowingly and unknowingly disguised.”
I doubt very much the policy towards Argentina changed much over the next decades.
Compare Franco and Peron: gateway to the Mediterranean vs ‘fin del mundo’ — and the handing over, however reluctantly, of the anglo power baton to the US, meaning US needs re. Argentina (=none)got prioritised over UK (=food imports etc).
“Capitalism” -as you describe it- is about as utopian as “socialism”!