From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Dec 17 2002 - 11:25:20 EST
Re Alfredo's [8202]: > I may (or may not - I am not sure) disagree with Jerry on this. I think > that the titles of ownership tell us very little, if the State has been > subsumed by the requirements of capital. I think we probably do disagree. > Let me put this in another way: the State has a fundamental role to play > in the birth of capital (ie, primitive accumulation) - namely, the task > of expropriating the direct producers, and the genesis of the capitalist > and the working classes, is too big to be undertaken by individual > proto-capitalists. It can only be achieved through the agency of the > State. Otherwise, it is *impossible*. > Even in the case of Britain and the US, where "laissez faire" at first > sight was of the essence, detailed historical analysis shows that the > State was > indispensable - not only in terms of establishing and > enforcing property rights, but also sending in the army and the police > to do the dirty work of capital. > If we accept this, and make a large analytical leap, it would follow that > there is *little* substantive difference between State and private > property of the means of production in modern capitalist societies. I have no problem with accepting this (by which I mean the previous 2 paragraphs of yours) but it is -- as you suggest -- "a large analytical leap" to conclude that there is little substantive difference between state and private ownership (and control) of the means of production in modern capitalist societies. Indeed, the "large analytical leap" isn't justified by the preceding two paragraphs which concern the birthing of capitalism and the creation of an institutional context in which capitalist relations are reproduced. > The fact that the British Crown owns large tracts of land is irrelevant - > it may be a remnant of feudalism, but this does not affect the *nature* > (ie, the essence) of land (or the State) in the UK. Right -- but I don't think it is irrelevant to the question of comprehending what Marx was addressing in his comment in the _Marginal Notes on Wagner_. > Pushing this point further, privatisation is generally *irrelevant* too. > The disadvantage of privatisation, from the point of view of the left, is > not because it displaces "social" ownership, and increases the "private" > ownership of the means of production. This is not the point. The point is > that privatisation reduces the potential leverage of the majority over > State policy, and the provision of essential goods and services, it > reduces the scope for State policy, and it increases the degree of > commodification of life. If it increases the degree of commodification 'of everyday life' then it is not irrelevant. When 'public goods' become commodities that is a significant result. This change in the form of ownership, in this case, can result in a decrease in the customary standard of living of the working class. > But, emphatically, in my view privatisation does *not* imply a > "retreat" of the State, or an "expansion" of the market. This opposition > is misleading. Well, I agree that an opposition is misleading -- since privatization is a coordinated campaign by capital and the state. To the extent that Neoliberal state policies are victorious then this is not a 'retreat' by the state but is rather a step forward ... from the perspective of both the state and capital. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 00:00:01 EST