Re: Uchitelle on jobless recovery

[Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> "...the issue is not more versus less government [or big government versus
> small government], but rather to whose interests the government gives
> effect.

Hi Ian, of course you are correct here, your point is excellent, this is
what I like to call "excellent reframing", I continue to marvel at your
brain.

In New Zealand, privatisation and regulation also went hand in hand, the
same in Holland and Britain. More freedom for Capital, more regulation for
Labour. As more freedom for Capital is provided, ordinary citizens are more
and more curtailed in what they may and may not do, and corporate principles
supplant democratic principles. This is related to a few simple points I
made previously about banale ideas in economic theory: "Say's Law" is false;
the market mechanism promotes no specific human morality of itself, beyond
elementary promise-keeping required to settle a contract; and the operation
of the market mechanism guarantees no social stability of itself.
Ultimately, the credibility of the capitalist state therefore hinges on its
ability to keep the working class under control.

My argument is (I have not able to research this comprehensively, because of
the endless psychological harrassment I have had, sexually and otherwise),
put simply and abstractly, that if the capitalist state begins to fail
significantly in this respect, then the corporations will be motivated to
constitute their own security forces to maintain order, just as the Dutch
East India Company, the first multinational, did in the mercantilist epoch
(to some extent this is already happening among the corporations, and of
course the capitalist state also increasingly "contracts out" security
operations; the greater the fiscal crisis which neoliberalism promotes, the
less you are able to guarantee the overall social stability necessary for a
good investment ""climate", since the working class will resist paying taxes
for a military apparatus designed to repress them - ultimately the
capitalist state remains as simply a bankrupt or uncompetitive corporation).

The main logistical problem of the capitalist state is, that it cannot be
everywhere at once, but a large corporation does not have that problem,
because it seeks only to protect its own interests vis-a-vis the rest, and
not the interests of civil society as a whole. The logic here is, "if you
want to trade with us, that's okay, but if you don't play by our rules, we
point a gun at you, we don't care about any other rules." The corporations
still support a large state military apparatus, contingently, but at some
point the cost-benefit perceptions will change. If you are operating in the
computerised "information age" and the age of precision warfare, the enemy
is increasingly less likely to be a large standing army amassed in a
specific geographic area anyway. The corporates will therefore argue,
eventually, that very large state military bureaucracies are not just
extremely costly, but also ineffective, because their own interests are not
sufficiently protected anyhow, despite the fantastic destructive capacity
developed by the military.

At the root of this newly emerging ideology is the perception, that the
capitalist state in the age of multinational corporations (globalisation) is
unable to articulate the interests of the capitalist system as a whole, it
is unable to find a basis for unity among ALL the corporations, nevermind
small-fry capitalists. That is my prognosis anyway. Most people don't
understand this logic yet, I think, at least I have seen very little written
on it yet. But that is I think how things will go, other things remaining
equal, looked at from the standpoint of the "logic" of global capitalism.

The best signs which augur for this prognosis are the completely pathetic
arguments offered in justification for government policies these days, the
failure of civil political discourse as such, highlighted by Mick Hume and
his people in the UK among others. The underlying reason why the policy
arguments are pathetic, is  the increasing practical inability of the
capitalist state to perform its traditional task well, namely to secure the
general conditions for the social reproduction of the system as a whole.
That is, the contradictions generated by capitalism, which, in terms of
class structuration, are identified by Marx as competition between
capitalists, competition between workers and capitalists, and competition
among workers, are becoming so great that it is impossible to manage and
reconcile them anymore within an "enlightened" rational framework. Bourgeois
politics therefore degenerates into a politics of alliances and coalitions
based on a desperate search for consensus, within which, a rational
relationship between means and ends is increasingly unclear.  If you think
that Bush does not grasp this problem, you're wrong. His argument is rather
that, with judicious, very strict but compassionate policies, you can foster
for the meantime a public morality which is required for the stability of
civil society. It may sound crazy, but that is the logic.

The counterargument to what I have just said is essentially the prospect of
a massive resurgence of workingclass nationalism, including protectionist
arguments, but even so, it is not clear that this nationalism (which could
assumed fascist, particularist or revolutionary expressions, depending on
the case) would necessarily bolster the capitalist state, it might well be
directed against the capitalist state, insofar as the capitalist state
plunders ordinary citizens and transfers wealth to the corporations, rather
than do anything that benefits citizens. And the whole drift of neoliberal
policy is in this direction.

Going back to protectionism, already in 1848, Marx and Engels put it
sarcastically this way: "Bourgeois socialism attains adequate expression
when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech. Free trade: for the
benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the
working class. Prison reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is
the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois socialism. It
is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois -- for the benefit
of the working class." (The Communist Manifesto). My query about a renewed
surge of protectionism in the medium term was really related to another
issue, namely the fomenting of new expressions of racism and nationalism
within the USA, which tends to poison international relations and
contributes to militarism (the justifications for more wars, in that case,
degenerate to such vulgar logic as "we need to get the gooks", "we need to
smash those dirty Arabs" and suchlike).

Of course you can never trust any Rightwing Thinktank to provide objective
information - otherwise they would not be a Rightwing Thinktank (even though
they have great wealth at their disposal, they still have to think sometimes
to protect their wealth). I checked out the latest news at the site of the
Cato Institute - a complaint about the Bush administration's apparent
commitment to maintain or increase welfare spending in certain areas,
related to the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriation
bill (here's an excerpt):

"The Bush administration has weighed in on the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education appropriation bill being debated in Congress.
Unfortunately, the administration's Statement of Policy on the bill shows
how deeply it has embraced expansion of the welfare state.
The Statement is riddled with complaints about "underfunded" programs and
demands for "full funding" of new "initiatives." It requests that Congress
increase funding on social programs with trite names, such as Parent Drug
Corps, Compassion Capital Fund, and Steps to a Healthier US. The
administration has rapidly expanded domestic spending, and this Statement
reveals the mushy liberal mindset at work behind the increases with little
regard to taxpayer costs.

Steps to a Healthier US promises "community initiatives to promote and
enable healthful choices." Checking out the program details at
www.healthierus.gov/steps/ suggests that most of the money for this
federal-local community partnership will get swallowed up in a bureaucracy
of grant applications, strategy guidebooks, and national summits with 1,000
community leaders.

The Statement says that the administration is "disappointed" that the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program will get only $1.8 billion, and that
the Access to Recovery Treatment Voucher Program will get "only" $100
million. The Statement demands that the Corporation for National and
Community Service be "fully funded," else Congress "would deny thousands of
Americans the opportunity to participate in national service." This sounds
like the sort of liberal carping that one would expect from Ted Kennedy."

Source: http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-23-03.html

In other words, Bush is not tough and rightwing enough, Bush is a liberal !
In a socialist society, "Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education"
would be among the core values of its very foundation, however, in the
United States today, it is just a piece of legislation, and money-conscious
capitalists debate on how much ought to be spent on it, some being more
generous and charitable, and others being more miserly and self-interested.

Thanks for your comment,

J.