Re: the state as capital[ist]

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

1. Working Conditions

Lisa describes a set of working conditions which :

i)      clearly pissed her off
ii)     had no direct and obvious relationship to the market
iii)    were comparable ( in some respects worse, in others better ) than 
private
        industry.

This I think describes the position of all working class public sector
employees anywhere in the world.

However, it ALSO describes large numbers of workers in the private sector.
The bureacracies of modern states and of modern corporations are
remarkably similar, and the processes at work similar. The division of
Labour within a large multinational means that while the aim is
ultimately profit, the direct connection of an individual's Labour to
the market is very remote, and the direct responsibility of individual
managers to the market is also remote.

Sometimes, as in the state sector, "market discipline" is imposed on
managers quite low down the management hierarchy, and as in the state
sector, the "prices" are notional, internal prices with only an indirect
relationship to the costs of production. So, a huge oil company can choose
for some reason or other to make all its profits in the drilling of oil,
break even on transporting the stuff and a useful tax loss in selling it.
This may have adverse consequences for your average petrol ( gas ? )
station manager. I know of ( successful ) battles against "privitisation"
of the security guards - but the original employer wasn't the state, but
ICL ( a British Computer Comany now owned by Fujitsu ).

2. The State as Capital

However, none of this is particularly crucial for my argument about the
modern capitalist state as a capitalist in its own right. The capital
that the state is accumulating is not just the 30,40, or 50% of the economy
directly under its supervision, but the whole block of capital on its
territory. This both complements and contradicts the tendency towards
the internationalisation of production.

States compete with each other militarily and economically. Germany is
attractive for investment since it has the largest single market in
Europe, and a very well educated workforce. Britain, on the other
hand, has lower costs per employee, but, in general, a less well
educated workforce. South Korea has a slightly ( not much, though )
cheaper workforce, probably better educated than Britain, but isn't
in the European Union, and therefore has restricted access to
that market. Also, Britain is able to "punch above its weight" ie
because it is nuclear and military power it has political influence
in eg Kuwait that Germany doesn't, which it can use to win arms
contracts.

States have control over the Labour force of a large number of the
people in its territory, which it exploits in order to be successful
in this international competition in order to accumulate "its" capital.

As I said above, this both complements and contradicts the tendency towards
the internationalisation of production ( and the other trend towards
regionalism eg the EU, NAFTA, the "Yen Zone" ).

3. "Political" or "State" Capital as a stage in the circulation of Capital.

Marx indentified two main stages in the circulation of capital : Productive
and Money Capital. He also identified other forms of capital eg Landed
Capital, and described how they all fitted together. I think in todays
world we also need to consider "political capital" or "state capital" as
a stage in the circulation of capital.

What are we to make of the products of the "ecole normal" ( I think that's
what its called ) in France ? It produces people to run the French state :
most of the leaders of the main political parties went there, as well
as the top managers of the main French companies, particularly those
owned by the state. Or someone like Berlusconi ? Or Ross Perot ? Or, for
that matter, the Mafia ?

I think the concept of "political capital" helps explain these phenomena.
The graduates of the "ecole normal" obviously have it. The Tory ex cabinet
ministers convert it into monetary capital by getting on the boards of the
companies they supervised while in government. Berlusconi felt he could convert
his monetary / productive capital into "politcal capital" in order to
reconvert it into monetary / productive capital later. Ross Perot feels excluded
by the political establishment from his rightful share of "political capital"
and has organised a party to help him get it. The Mafia has grabbed a share
of "political capital" and converts it into monetary capital on a regular
basis.

When Fujitsu bought ICL, they got some productive capital, some monetary
capital, and, via ICL's links with the British State, some political
capital.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------