[PEN-L:1710] Re: Aglietta

["Hugo Radice" <HKR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I accidentally sent my last posting before it was complete...

To continue:  The second problem with the debates over the new
post-Fordist regime of accumulation &/or mode of regulation is that
most of the regime/mode prognostications assume that the arena in
which the new social forms are emerging is a national one.  The
common weakness here, I believe, is to assume that 'politics' is
basically national, because the state is national, and therefore the
social, political, cultural and legal changes in process are being
shaped at the national level.  This fits in with the growing
literature on 'capitalisms', which compare the institutional systems
of capitalism in different states (e.g. the debate on Anglo-Saxon vs.
German/'continental' systems of banking and of corporate governance).
 I would argue, however, that although there is indeed a lot of hype
about globalisation, current changes in ALL capitalist societies are,
more than in earlier epochs of capitalism, variations on a common
global theme.  Alain Lipietz' 'Mirages and Miracles' addresses some
of the issues raised by global integration, but the result seems to
be essentially centred on what NATIONAL responses are feasible.

Politically, it seems almost inevitable that this 'national' approach
to structural changes in capitalist society overemphasises the agency
of the state, and underemphasises the agency of class.  This is
encouraged by the natural tendency of my generation (40/50 year olds)
to get impatient with being on the sidelines, and seek influence in
potentially-governing social-democratic (or worse!) parties;  but
such parties seem deeply rooted almost everywhere in a nationalist
past.

Enough for now - work to do (that is, wage-labour).  Any comments?
(By the way, I think I have amplified what I meant by nation-statist,
Riccardo).

Hugo Radice
hkr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx