impossibility of soc dem in U.S.

[rc-am]

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
_________