[OPE] The state under capitalism

From: Paul Cockshott <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
Date: Sat Aug 14 2010 - 07:01:38 EDT

With all these qualifications the structural theory of determinations looks like Ptolomey with epicycles or Appolonius with defferents..
Is it really better than a class composition theory?
The Atlee parliament had the highest working class membership ever, that might explain why it was more radical than other labour govts.

--- original message ---
From: "Dave Zachariah" <davez@kth.se>
Subject: Re: [OPE] The state under capitalism
Date: 14th August 2010
Time: 11:04:43 am

On 2010-08-14 11:05, Paul Cockshott wrote:
> There is a missunderstanding in your answer Gottwald headed the first CPs govt in prague. There was a continuum of change in proprty relations, least in Sweden most for the Czechoslovaks, with the UK in the middle.

Sorry, I mistakenly took Gottwald to be a German name, as part of some
post-war CDU govt. You meant Klement Gottwald of the CPC.

But in that case I think the answer is clear: The war effort had offset
the structural mechanism in Czechoslovakia, Sweden and the UK. Albeit to
very different degrees, Sweden was 'neutral', its economy intact by the
war, and in fact some industries could grow e.g. by exporting iron ore
to Fascist Germany. The situation was quite different in Czechoslovakia
and the UK. The varying offsets predict different probabilities of
transitions in property relations, with Czechoslovakia and UK more
likely than Sweden.

Being CP, rather than a social-democratic party in power, the CPC (a)
had a much firmer strategic goal of state ownership and (b) had the
weight of the USSR behind it. In other words, that the CPC did go
furthest would be predicted.

In Sweden the nationalization debates within SAP met fierce opposition
from the capitalist class and it had far vaguer goals about what a
socialist economy would entail. I suppose that the British Labour party
was not significantly different on this point.

But never the less I think that the Attlee government did push for more
decisive policies of state ownership in a single term than any SAP
government. But the key difference in changes in property relations is
that Labour's term ended in 1951, while the SAP remained in power
uninterrupted until 1976, gradually increasing the scope of the public
welfare system.

//Dave Z
ope mailing list

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
ope mailing list
Received on Sat Aug 14 08:33:25 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Aug 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EDT