> On 26/07/2013, at 2:35 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > First, information gathering is a non-issue to me.
>
>
> OK, you are entitled to your opinion, but its part of the English-speaking
> culture to be suspicious of authority having too much power. Usually with
> good reason, this is a classic instance.
>
[WS:] I know that. I also think that because of this "suspicion of authority" English speaking cultures get the short end of the stick from its business class. Here is the reason why, which I posted in response to some other stuff. Government can be your best weapon against your boss, so writing it off is giving ground to the bosses.
"I this light it also worth mentioning a piece by Brenner some 25 years ago on history of capitalist development in Europe. In a nutshell, he argues that the factor of primary importance was the mode of labor control: directly by lords in England, and indirectly by state in continental Europe (by which he meant mainly France, the Netherlands, and parts of Germany).
The direct control by lords in England led to a more hands off or "liberal" posture of government and the development of market relations as the means of surplus extraction. The direct control of government was a bit more complicated because it resulted in imposition of institutional constraints on both lords and peasants and greater land ownership by peasants which impeded the development of market relations.
Following this argument, the direct control of labor by lords, and later capitalists is a "British" path of capitalist development that was transplanted to the colonies. The indirect control of labor by government was the continental European path, with very much different consequences.
The Eurolords and later Eurocapitalists may have objected to this government control but they also understood that government would also discipline labor, so they did not object to government dirigism that much.
For example, Otto von Bismarck surprised capitalists by installing a universal social welfare scheme in Germany for purely political reasons.
Bismarck's primary concern was political unification of Germany and did not want labor unrest get in his way, so he came up with a social insurance policy to pacify it. The capitalists hated it all the way, but also understood its effect on labor control so they grudgingly went along. In that context, Hitler's "keynesian" policies ware also palatable to capital, since Hitler also used strong political means of labor control (complete with concentration camps.)
In England, the lords could control labor directly and had little use of government playing a mediation role in economic affairs. That role meant a net loss to them, because it would subject them to greater government control without giving them anything what they did not already have in terms of labor control. That evolved to a laissez faire "liberal" model in which economic relations are negotiated directly by interested parties (including capital and labor) and the government merely enforcing the contracts.
To demonstrate the significance of that difference, compare two countries - Sweden and Australia (and also New Zealand.) Both countries had similar class structure in the late 19th and most of the 20th centuries- dominant small holders and working class, and both had Labour controlled governments throughout much of the 20th century. One would also expect that both countries opt for strong government involvement in economic affairs and a welfare state. Despite that, however, Australia basically followed the liberal British model putting emphasis on strengthening labor's hand in wage negotiations with employers and not very eager in developing a welfare state as Sweden did. This demonstrated that institutional path played an equally if not more significant role than the power of Labour.
So with that in mind, it makes sense to talk about at least two variants of capitalism that evolved from two different modes of labor control - the laissez faire capitalism of the British/US/Australia/New Zealand variety in which capitalists control labor directly through market relations with little government involvement, and the institutional capitalism of the continental Europe/Japan variety in which government mediates economic relations and controls both labor and capital - not necessarily with an even hand, but but it can favor either labor as in Sweden or Norway, or capital as in Germany or to lesser extent in France. This explains many differences between the Anglo and the Euro world - from the development of welfare state to labor's attitudes toward government. It also explains why keyenesian full employment policy, public works etc have a greater chance of being implemented in Europe than in the US. It is not that the USG does not have the power to pursue such policies, but that such policies go against "core American values" that evolved from laissez faire capitalism, so implementing them would cost far more political capital than doing so in Europe."
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."