Baby Bonds in UK

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Sun Apr 29 13:48:22 PDT 2001


At 29/04/01 11:03 -0700, Dennis wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, Chris Burford wrote:
>
> > I think the point is that this is different. It is capital, which
> cannot be
> > spent in any shape or form till the age of 18
>
>Nope. Capital is a social relation, not a thing; it's the totality of all
>the property relations, relations of exchange, etc. in the world-system.

Theoretically correct, and important. I was using the term here in the lay sense, as a saved sum that earns interest. The way millions now directly or indirectly have a sum of money invested in capitalist shares, is complex. I am persuaded by the arguments of David Schweickart in "Against Capitalism" that the share-holding section of the population of course benefits from capitalism. It has a very small subordinate role in a system which is dominated by finance capital.

On the other hand the insurance and pension funds, if they could be induced to have some measures of social foresight and not just an obligation to maximise earnings, could bring the total capitalist system in a country under greater social control than through the ownership of the banks and the "commandings heights" of an economy.

I really see the Babyy Bond proposal at this stage as an attempt to put the Conservatives off balance, and to open the door to some strategic thinking that Labour might pursue later. In itself it does not amount to much, and will not be introduced anyway for several years. It is not a powerful argument for voting Labour in a few weeks time.

Chris Burford

London



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list