Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
A paper in the monde diplomatique mentions that there is another class than the capital owners and the workers ; that is, the technostructure people that actually work at high levels in state and private bureaucracies. They had been in alliance with the left wing after WWII and have been coopted by the financial/capitalist sectors.

They are the people in whom the neoliberal narrative has to be enforced ; they happen to be the main market of the Financial Times and Wall Street Journal...

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sat Dec 8th, 2007 at 05:34:20 PM EST
With a strange conclusion:


Avec toute leur puissance militaire, économique et culturelle, les Etats-Unis, centre mondial systémique, impérialiste, s'emploient à s'imposer comme l'acteur dominant de cette « étaticité » de classe globale en voie de formation.

Dans une large mesure, ils y parviennent. A l'opposition des deux mondes, propre à la guerre froide, ou à celle d'une « triade » - Etats-Unis et Canada, Union européenne et Japon -, s'est substituée une hiérarchie hégémonique impérialiste unipolaire, un pôle de concentration des capitaux, commandant leur réexportation au reste de la planète.

The ray of hope that I see is that the US is not "exporting" capital, but importing it. That's the profound weakness of the predatory version of capitalism we're seeing now. They are exporting methods, the Narrative, but reality may prevail - and the "competents" are more sensitive to reality than others...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat Dec 8th, 2007 at 05:58:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is London, that other center, supplying such a different narrative to the US?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Sun Dec 9th, 2007 at 05:09:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is built on importing capital and running big deficits just the same - it's similarly predatory on outsiders' economies, via finance.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Dec 9th, 2007 at 05:18:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Otherwise what they're saying is pretty much "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but the dollar".

There's a lot of good historical analysis, I think, but their insistence on getting everything straight with Marxist theory is, as usual, wearing and finally depressing. It leads them to the necessity for the unity of purpose of the "fundamental classes" and to, shades of Trotsky, a worldwide proletarian movement. This is supposed, when it gets going, to persuade the "organisational" group to climb on board instead of working with the capitalists. Well I've no doubt it would. But if this is the only hope for the left, it's slim and very long-term. At the moment, it's the capitalists' ownership of the means of speaking to the masses that is an absolute barrier to the kind of purpose, unity, dynamic, that the authors want to see. And I don't see that changing without action on the part of some at least of the "organisational" group.

This group has always bedevilled Marxist analysis. I have heard a good many shouting matches (back in the heady post-'68 days, of course) about whether the intellectuals, the cadres, the managers, the functionaries, were to be considered as proletarians, maybe as kind of "honorary" proletarians, as objective allies of the capitalists, or as by their nature enemies of the working class. Marxist revolutionary theory fitted them in as the "avant-garde", but we saw what became of that. The authors of this article consider them as a separate class which will work with capital or labour without essentially belonging with either. The point being to create conditions in which the balance of power or at least its currently ruling dynamic will pull the "organisers" over to the proletarian side.

So yet more great all-encompassing schemes involving underlying historical purpose/finality (of the bourgeoisie and the proletariet, but the authors don't say those words because they're modern Marxists). Perhaps there will be growing workers' movements in those parts of the world that capital has exported production to, but I don't see any change in the developed world unless part of the "organisational" group changes the conditions of public discourse. But I would say that, wouldn't I?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Dec 9th, 2007 at 12:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series