The argument here is that Euro governments were more eager to save capitalism from excesses of individual capitalists than their US counterparts. Example include universal social programs that affected all capitalists more or less uniformly (i.e. without giving an advantage to any particular group of them) and pacified labor - which in a long run benefited capitalists as a whole class. By contrast, US political parties prevented the implementation of universal programs and instead opted for programs targeting narrowly defined constituencies, which tended to benefit particular groups of capitalists, but for that reasons they were opposed by other groups.
So if Hudson's argument is true, it means a rather dramatic change of not just policies, but also the entire governance mode - a course that may wreck not just the working class but also certain groups of capitalists (e.g. manufacturing.) This, in turn, begs the question how such a dramatic turnaround has been accomplished in a system that was designed for muffling conflicts, balancing opposing class interests , and maintaining system stability by "buying social peace."
The finance capital might have grabbed the UK by its balls, but I do not think it is an unstoppable force in Germany, France and a host of other continental Europe countries where manufacturing still matters a lot.
Hence the question, who is behind it? Has the Eurobureaucracy been secretly taken over by a neo-liberal wrecking crew? And if so, how? Or is it more or less a consensus among major Euro governments that use EU structures as an attack dog to implement unpopular policies that otherwise would cost them elections at home?
Any other thoughts?
Wojtek
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:52 PM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> See
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/hudson10012010.html
>
> Though it seems to me that it is west vs east mostly.
>
> Joanna
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>