16 SOCIAL SCIENTIST from any radical quarters, in which case such a revival would have a very different complexion, entailing chauvinism and jingoism, from the welfarist and social democratic conceptions of the post-war era; and the tremendous spread of racialism and neo-Fascism all over Europe may be a pointer in this direction. But, no matter what the nature of the revival of the nation-State in the advanced capitalist countries, any such revival would once again create the space required for a similar revival of the nation-State in the third world. This is not to say that one should welcome Right-wing nationalism in the advanced capitalist world, or be indifferent between a radical revival of the nation-State and a chauvinistic revival; this is only to underscore the fact that it is impossible to visualize such a revival not occurring. If the world looks somewhat Kautskyite at the moment, that does not by any means signal the victory of the Kautskyite perspective in the debate between Lenin and Kautsky. As regards the second question, to say that any alternative to the current set of policies presupposes international coordination, and can no longer be based on a national, or any kind of a spatially-restricted, response, a proposition which some radicals argue, is vacuous: it amounts de facto to conceding that a feasible alternative to the current set of policies does not exist. The fallacy in my view lies in believing that an undermining of the 'control' area' of the nation-State is tantamount to an impossibility of intervention. What such undermining does is to impose an important additional constraint upon the nation-State; the nation-State cannot certainly intervene in the old way. It can now intervene with some degree of success only if it takes this constraint into account. Specifically, for economies like India this involves that the volatility of financial flows has to be kept under check through a combination of: (i) direct regulations; (ii) an overall sound balance of payments (in relative terms, which is not synonymous with neo-mercantilism); (iii) and, above all, through a development strategy which ensures economic advance with social stability. This is not the place to outline an alternative programme, which in case has been discussed in great detail elsewhere. But an essential component of any alternative programme over and above the mere nitty-gritty of an economic strategy must be a strengthening of democratic institutions and structures. Only then would its appropriation by the basic classes be a productive and more durable one. In other words, what is essential is not a new bout of social engineering, but a genuine process of social transformation which expands the direct political intervention capacity of the basic classes. Much has been written on the State-versus-market dichotomy, and much of it is facile. If the State is not sufficiently accountable to civil society then it ^ias to be made accountable; but this cannot be ensured merely by a formal change in its character. Such a formal change has to be accompanied by a substantive expansion in the capacity for direct intervention on the part of the