impossibility of soc dem in U.S.

rc-am rcollins at netlink.com.au
Sat Sep 18 00:04:31 PDT 1999


ok, so in effect, leaving aside what might well be important details, people are more or less saying that the degree to which capital is concentrated in ownership, brought together through credit, or at least where credit takes on the role of setting the terrain for individual capitals, capital is 'socialised', in the sense of allowing capital and labour (say, as represented by unions) to confront eachother within a certain bargaining framework, more prone to the pressures of social/industrial policy, etc???

feel free to jump in if this isn't an accurate translation.

but an additional question i'd have would be which country other than the US did not entail a central banking system, at least at some distinctive point? germany, singapore, australia, japan, malaysia, indonesia... i'm trying to think of some which are more like the US, but these aren't, and they certainly don't all fall within the left of any continuum as described by the article.

and, it seems to me that the conditions being described in the US miss the specific character of the US globally. certainly the US, by virtue of Bretton Woods, acted as de jure and de fact global credit (bolstered invariably by military force around the world), which means in some perverse way that the system that was perhaps absent within the US was by no means absent globally -- it was (is still?) the US. i have no idea how that connection works, but it seems to me it does or must at some point.

endless questions...

Angela _________



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list