You are right to emphasize the national and regional character of capital.
It seems to me that, as opposed to RKM's argument, it is globalization
that has become the new conventional wisdom. It is common to see
all manner of commentators "sampling on the dependent variable" of
globalization tendencies, often accompanied by all sorts of
postmodern hand-waving, and failing to take note of the continuing central
role of nation-states in the global political economy.
The creation of the Bretton Woods institutions and the promotion of "free
trade" by U.S. capital after WW II reflected U.S. dominance and the fact
that U.S. capital would best be able to use this framework. Since the
early 70s, the U.S., W. Europe and Japan have been jockeying for
advantage within a less stable framework. To the extent that they can all
reap benefits from a favorable institutional framework, then coordination
can succeed (via the G7, Trilateral Commission, GATT/ITO, etc). But there
is clearly competition as well as cooperation. It is the nature of
capitalism -- anarchic, as Marx said.
Back to Lenin -- he argued against "ultraimperialism," (the unity of
global capital) and stressed instead inter-imperialist conflict. So far
I'd say history bears out conflict overall. The ultraimperialist variant
of the globalization viewpoint (it doesn't really seem to be a theory) is
more speculative than the alternative.
[Interesting side note relevant to inter-imperialist conflict -- the NYT
reported last week that the U.S. intelligence agencies, in their annual
report to congress, said that the U.S. faces no serious threat in the
foreseeable future. No mention of China. Only a myriad of minor problems
adding up to instability in the periphery -- nothing new there.]
Richard Hutchinson