Angela wrote:
>neither spain nor france in the 15th century had citizens or purported to
>represent the spanish of french _people_. they had subjects. a quite
>different formation to what i would call the nation-state. in any event,
>it's one thing to say there is money, trade, the accumulation of wealth,
>etc, quite another to say there is capitalism, that is, that capital
>(surplus value) is definitive to the organisation and reproduction of
>social relationships.>
I didn't say that 15th or 16th century Spain or France were _republics_, but that they were nation-states. Countries can monarchies and have subjects (as opposed to citizens as in a republic) and still be nation-states. If you meant to say that capitalism preceded the first republic (the United States) then I agree with you.
>>Angela wrote:
>>>any benefits derived from so-called local control
>>>of economic policy are and always have been premised on the exploitation
>>>and immiseration of people, resources, etc in other places. it's always
>>>been a question of a global division of the spoils.>
>
>>That's a broad generalization. There are many cases where nation-states
>have been controlled (at least temporarily) by progressive forces who used
>the power of the state for the economic and social benefit of its
>citizenry. And now that global capital has become so powerful, the
>nation-state is the only institution strong enough restrain it -- through
>capital controls, etc.<
>
>yes it is a broad generalisation. but all you have said is that there have
>been some cases where nation-states do stuff to benefit some citizens. i
>don't dispute this has occured, and within the strict framework that
>russell has alluded to. but this does not at all contradict what i said
>above: "any benefits derived from so-called local control of economic
>policy are and always have been premised on the exploitation and
>immiseration of people, resources, etc in other places. it's always been a
>question of a global division of the spoils". and, i would add that i
>think holloway is quite right to note that "the existence of any national
>state depends not just on the reproduction of world capitalism, but on the
>reproduction of capitalism within its boundaries, it must seek to attract
>and, once attracted, to immobilise capital within its territory. ...a
>struggle to attract and retain a share of world capital (and hence a share
>of global surplus value). In order to achieve this, the national state
>must try to ensure favourable conditions for the reproduction of capital
>within its boundaries ... and also give international support ... to the
>capital operating within its boundaries, largely irrespective of the
>citizenship of the legal owners of that capital. ... Global capital is no
>more 'external' to Cochabamba, Zacatlan, or even Tannochbrae than it is to
>New York, Tokyo or London, although the forms and consequences of its
>presence differ enormously."
>
>leaning on the nation as the bulwark against global capital assumes that
>the nation is not indeed a moment within global capital. and didn't you
>already suggest as much when you wrote above "it was the power of the
>nation-state (specifically its military power) that allowed capital to
>spread beyond local boundaries"??
>
>but, let's get down to tin tacks, adam: what do you think this 'national
>strategy' against 'global capital' consists of? serious question.
>
>Angela>
Well, I didn't say anything about a 'national strategy' against global capital, so I'm not really sure what you're asking. Please explain. As to what Russell said, I agree that much state regulation of capital exists for the benefit of capital, when capital can no longer survive in free market conditions. In fact, some banks actually asked the US Federal Gov't to nationalize them following the 1929 crash. However, there are other regulations that exist solely due to popular pressure which act as constraints on capital and which do not benefit capital: the minimum wage, the 8 hour day, etc. Also the "new regulation" of the post-1960s period such as environmental laws. These laws force corporations to absorb the "external costs" of pollution which have traditionally been borne by the public. One of the main features of the now defunct Multilateral Agreement on Investment was to eliminate the right of the public to use their political power (state power) for the defense of the environment. The capitalists behind the MAI see the regulatory power of the nation-state as an impediment to capital and were trying to eliminate it. Of course, these very same people will probably come crying to the state for a bail out the next time there's a big financial crises.
_________
>
>PS. Russell, yes, i kind of agree with what you wrote, but i think there
>needs to be an account given of the nation-state as a response to the
>de-territorialisation of (eg) feudal systems of exploitation, eg, the
>vagabondage laws that holloway wrote of. and in this sense, the
>nation-state as a mechanism of coercion and enclosure which the sheer
>mechanisms of authority within the immediate process of production were
>unable to accomplish by themselves, insufficient as they were and perhaps
>still are to reproducing the social relations of capitalism outside the
>punctual sites of production. but however one wishes to depict the
>trajectory, we perhaps agree that the nation-state is now indistinct from
>global capital.>
>
>