Carrol writes:
> Marvin Gandall wrote:
>>
>
>> Capitalism is compatible only with the temporary public ownership and
>> restructuring of distressed industries.
>
> Why? This does not seem self-evidfent to me at all. There obviously has
> to be a huge and varied private sector, but there doesn't seem to be any
> "natural" tipping point at which state enterprsise growth transforms the
> system significantly. I see no a priori reason why the entire banking
> system could not be nationalized without overturning capitalism.
>
> Please explain. I think you vastly underestimate the vitality and
> flexibility of capitalist social relations -- and the political,
> cultural, ideological strength embedded in those social relations.
=====================================
I suppose it's theoretically possible (like many of your speculations) but
to my knowledge there are no historical examples of finance capitalists or
the ruling class surrendering ownership and control of credit to a
liberal-democratic state susceptible to mass pressure. Can you cite any?
Financial institutions will accept a measure of regulation in the interests
of the industry as a whole, and in extraordinary circumstances, they will
invite state intervention to rescue insolvent banks and other enterprises
with a view towards reviving them and restoring them to the private sector
after having taken responsibility for their losses. But that is where they
draw the line.
E.H. "Major" Douglas, the cranky right-wing British engineer constructed an entire theory called Social Credit during the interwar period which was based on the nationalization of the banks and the issuance of cheap credit. Needless to say, his notions were never put into practice by a Social Credit government in Alberta which followed conventional pro-business policies which favoured the powerful banks, oil companies, and other interests in the province. The idea of socializing credit has resonated mostly with farmers and other small property owners who are perpetually in hock to their bankers but who are committed in all other respects to private ownership.