>This sounds interesting--the system absent within the US but not absent
globally etc. But I don't get it. Could you rephrase?<
well, that's supposing that i get exactly what i'm reaching for. which i don't. only the vaguest of impressions and furrowed brow and more question, most of which i'm not in a position to answer.
in a crude sense, my problem is this: if capital within the US is notable for the immediacy of its power, via the mechanisms of dividends to stockholders, compared to countries where capital accomplished a kind of national 'consciousness' in relation to a nationally organised labour movement, by way of the mediations of banks (which was thereby open to the confrontations and various settlements with nationally organised unions), then how does this relate to the way in which the US Treasury acted as the global mediator of capitalism, through the use of the US$ as the global currency, where it confronted not labour movements but other nations and blocs in which (often) those labour movements had official recognition? it wasn't always immediate, in the sense of the direct application of violence or bankruptcy or the collapse of stock prices, but included as well the kinds of spending regimes like the marshall plan (whose contradictory effects and context we all know, but this applies to social democratic politics as well)?
of course, i'm leaving aside that there is little soc dem mediation of the relationship between capital and labour in play anywhere much today, for a variety of reasons, some of which doug noted. so, in some ways i'm musing about history out loud. but, what if there is an historical connection between the kinds of national soc dem structures, including banking, and the global positioning of the US$ relative to other national currencies?
maybe i'm answering too many question with the same answer, including the question of whether capital can sustain competition between individual firms without a framework in which the interests of capitalism as a whole are granted. the US certainly had a global capitalist strategy, but did it have an internal one beyond the immediacy of profits and dividends, and indeed one that wasn't always premised on the patriotism of the US as global guardian a la HUAC? what happens if the answer to this is no?
only questions.
Angela _________