<<
Use of the state in this way meant that capital was forced to try to
regulate competition and thus contradict its own laws. The increased role
for the state was as a crutch for an increasingly doddery system. This role
for the state is evidence of stagnation rather than a sign of anything
particularly progressive. I would also argue that measures undertaken by
the state which might appear to have progressive implications for the
majority (nationalisation of industry or the formation of a national health
service are oft quoted examples) were usually also in the interests of
capital rather than the majority and were intended to ensure the
perpetuation of a particular form of social relations. Of course there are
(rare) situations where the balance of forces dictates that the state (on
behalf of capital) coughs up and makes concessions to the masses. It
doesn't look that way now.
We shouldn't see state intervention as a way to reduce the negative effects
of so-called globalisation. Rather than "restraining" globalising
tendencies, such intervention is, if anything, in the long run more likely
to be used to replicate at an international (global) level the kinds of
competition between capitalists which was normal at a national level in
capital's earlier phases.
--------------------------I am curious, Russell, as to exactly what system you would prefer over measures enforced by the state which seek to regulate trade to some degree, presumably on the behalf of the citizenry.