Alright, some thoughts on why we probably should be much more careful when using categories such as 'domestic/national bourgeoisie' as opposed to 'foreign capital' (along the lines of Dependency Theory or otherwise). Two reasons: 1/n

Reason 1: irrespective of their ‘nationality’ (the legal forms of property i.e. national vs. foreign), all individual capitals operating in a particular national space of valorisation are part of a contradictory unity: the national total social capital. 2/n

Both domestic and foreign firms (or local subsidiaries/branches of a transnational corporation), are parts of the national total social capital. 3/n

This is important to understand national dynamics of accumulation and modalities of integration into the world market (role of national total social capital in global total social capital), but also… 4/n

because the national state represents the general interest of the national total social capital, not those of the domestic bourgeoisie or a specific political faction, class fraction, or segment of capital of a particular nationality. 5/n

Reason 2: foreign firms are directly implicated in processes of transnational class formation. They do not confront a preexisting indigenous national bourgeoisie as an external, antagonistic force. 6/n

They are integral to the development of class relations within and across national lines. 7/n

The reason I’m mentioning this is that (it seems to me) much contemporary international and comparative political economy continues to rely on the dichotomy national bourgeoise versus foreign capital to study processes of state formation and particular policies. 8/n

Needless to say, this is also very problematic from a political standpoint. END/