russell

Oiboy27 at aol.com Oiboy27 at aol.com
Thu Sep 23 16:14:44 PDT 1999


In a message dated 99-09-22 08:01:38 EDT, youRussel writes:

<<

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.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list