[PEN-L:32866] O'Neill and sectors of capitalism

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 07/12/02 15:21 -0500, Doug wrote:
> Chris Burford wrote:
>
> >  But what sector of capitalism did he represent if it was not finance
> > capital?
>
> Are you using this term in Hilferding's sense, as the unity of industry
> and finance on the mystical model of the Holy Trinity?

I do not know see Google pickings later.

> I don't think things are so seamlessly joined. O'Neill came out of fairly
> traditional heavy industry and always expressed hostility towards Wall Street

why?

> - and they returned the favor. They never trusted his dedication to a
> strong dollar policy,

 why would manufacturers favour a strong dollar policy? (unless they are
importing aluminium ore?)

>  one issue that divides manufacturers and financiers. Wall Street wants a
> markets guy at Treasury - we'll see if they get what they want.

Doug, these may be fiddly questions and things can get too detailed, but
the present abrupt dismissal of O'Neill suggests a lightening flash in a
looming storm, at least as far as Bush is concerned. Understanding the
contradictions between different sectors of capitalism as they square up
for the possibility of a worse crisis, is instructive.

I note also your observation that

> the Wall Street/high tech capital that dominates the Dems, and had their
> way in the Clinton years.

There are some parallels with the Blair administration.

So does Bush's firing of O'Neill and his preference for even more radical
tax cuts, reflect a shift in the loyalties between different sectors of
capital?

I know none of these determinations is simplistic - more a sense of
tendency or relative gravitational force, and the superstructure of ideas
and emotions is only relatively dependent on the economic base. But....

Chris Burford

London