In writing
Mike ascribes the attempts by the state to combat inflation to
scruples about honouring the 'promise to pay' written on the
notes. Might it not be the class interest of the rentiers
that explains it.
I wonder if Paul is not allowing rather a lot of unconstrained class
subjectivity (perish the thought) to rentiers, and too little 'universal'
subjectivity ('autonomy'?) to the state? No doubt the precise modalities of the
way in which the state as universal social subject carries out its abstract role
of reproducing money, vary with, amongst other things, the representation of
different fractions of capitalist classes under different regimes. It is a
commonplace (about which I have no particular evidence) that the market liberal
'conservative' govenrments in the UK since 1979 have favoured 'The City' over
industrial capital, who do seem ready for a small dose of highly diluted
Blairite corporatism. But, defence of the value of the currency seems
increasingly to be common ground across a wide spectrum of bourgeois political
tendencies - perhaps they are onto something?
Michael W.