THE ANTINOMIES OF TRANSNATIONALISM 25 progress under this order, not only in the north but also in the south; thirdly, a belief in the proposition that "internal disasters and internal conflicts" in the third world have nothing to do with capitalism but are instead the product of autonomous and internal forces in these societies having their roots in the pre-capitalist milieu characteristic of these societies; and fourthly, a belief in the "non-essentiality" of conflict between different countries and regions of the world even in conditions of capitalism. To put it in a nutshell, underlying 'transnationalism' is a view of capitalism as a potentially progressive and humane force based on a harmony rather than a conflict of national interests. The dichotomy where absorption into metropolitan capitalism is seen as 'progressive' in contrast to the "backward, reactionary and inhumane' internal pre-capitalist structures, which underlies Galbraith's view, is reminiscent of the dual economy models of development economics which drew a distinction between the 'modern' and the 'traditional' sectors. The problem of development according to this view consisted in the fact that the modern sector was too small relative to the traditional; this problem could be overcome if fetters upon the growth of the modern sector were removed in which case it would keep expanding until the entire economy was transformed and 'modernised'. In a similar fashion the 'transnationalist' view holds that there is a progressive and humane international current in contrast to the backward and reactionary domestic one; once a country opens its doors to the former it would be on the path to development; at the very least a necessary condition for building a socially, politically and economically progressive society is to open one's doors to the former. One can scarcely doubt that this perception will be shared by many in our own society. I have often come across in columns of newspapers and newsmagazines the view that 'globalisation' as a 'modernising' force represents an antidote to communalism in our country. Indeed adherents of this view can be found even in Left circles. This is not as surprising as may appear at first sight since a belief in the progressive, indeed revolutionary, role of capitalism wherever it makes its appearance is a part of the intellectual legacy of Classical (i.e. pre-Leninist) Marxism. I strongly disagree with this perception and shall devote the rest of this lecture to a critique of it. At the outset however I would like to demarcate my critique from other possible ones. An analogy with the dual economy models will be useful here. These models can be critiqued in diverse ways: through a rejection on ethical grounds of the concept of 'modernisation', through a denial of the so-called 'backwardness' of the 'backward' sector, through an underlining of the complexity of life which is inadequately captured by postulating merely two sectors, through doubts about the ability of the 'modern' sector to pull the 'backward' sector with it instead of being dragged back by it, and so on.