When the Bretton Woods system collapsed
SocialEqualityUS
By Nick Beams
16 August 2001
Yesterday marked the 30th anniversary of one of the most significant turning
points in the history of post-war capitalism. On August 15, 1971, without prior
warning to the leaders of the other major capitalist powers, US president Nixon
announced in a Sunday evening televised address to the nation that the US was
removing the gold backing from the dollar. The commitment by the US to redeem
international dollar holdings at the rate of $35 per ounce had formed the
central foundation of the post-war international financial system set in place
at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944. Nixon’s unilateral announcement
dealt it a fatal blow.
To gauge the impact of Nixon’s decision and the significance of what followed
it is necessary to consider the historical background to the Bretton Woods
system. The agreement arrived at in the New Hampshire township in the summer of
1944 was the outcome of a protracted series of discussions and arguments
between the leading economic and financial figures in the US and British
governments over the preceding three years.
Within the Roosevelt administration the conviction had developed, particularly
in the State Department under Cordell Hull, that the root cause of the economic
and political crises of the 1930s lay in the growth of protectionism as
national governments sought to defend their immediate domestic interests at the
expense of the functioning of the global economy as a whole. Furthermore, it
was felt that one of the contributing factors to this turbulence was the free
movement of capital around the world which destabilised national economies and
set in motion the competitive devaluation of national currencies that played
such havoc with international trade.
Consideration of the shape of post-war international economy was very much to
the fore when Roosevelt met British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1941 to
discuss the terms of Lend Lease (the process through which the US provided
financial and material assistance to the British war effort). Somewhat to the
surprise of the British side, however, the US insisted on the insertion of a
clause in the Atlantic Charter guaranteeing free trade and access to markets.
Both governments committed themselves to “further the enjoyment by all
States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the
trade and raw materials of the world.”
The US was determined that the trading bloc, which Britain had formed on the
basis of its old empire, would have to be destroyed in the post-war world. As
Robert Skidelsky puts it in his biography of John Maynard Keynes, Britain’s
chief negotiator at Bretton Woods: “To condense a complicated story, the
Americans tried to use Lend Lease as a lever to destroy Britain’s pre-war
financial and trading system, based on the sterling area and imperial
preference.” While as far as Britain was concerned, the chief aim in
negotiations with the US was, in Keynes’ words “the retention by us of
enough assets to leave us capable of independent action.”
Whatever the issues which divided them, the British and US officials were
agreed on one thing: there could not be a return to the pre-World War I
situation where capital was free to move all over the world. International
trade had to take place without the constrictions that had bedeviled the world
economy in the 1930s. But this could only take place if the movement of capital
was not allowed to disrupt trade and currency relationships.
How far removed the policymakers of that time were from today’s prevailing
orthodoxy can be seen in the remarks of US treasury secretary Henry Morgenthau
to the Bretton Woods conference. The aim of the agreement, he told the
assembled representatives of 45 nations, was to “drive the usurious
moneylenders from the temple of international finance.”
Keynes had made clear that if free capital movements were allowed then it would
not be possible to establish the kind of regulated capitalism at which the new
agreement was aimed. “Freedom of capital movements,” he insisted, “is an
essential part of the old laissez-faire system and assumes that it is right to
have an equalisation of interest rates in all parts of the world. ... In my
view the whole management of the domestic economy depends upon being free to
have the appropriate rate of interest without reference to the rates prevailing
elsewhere in the world. Capital control is a corollary to this.”
The issue of capital controls was directly connected to the political situation
which confronted the capitalist class after World War II. The eruption of World
War I had brought the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the series of
revolutionary upheavals that had convulsed Europe in the period 1918-23. With
the end of war now in sight, every capitalist government was aware that a
return to the condition of the 1930s would bring no less explosive struggles.
It was against this background that Keynes explained the necessity for capital
controls. Unless they were put in place any government that attempted to make
social reforms in the form of unemployment benefits and other social welfare
measures would find its program immediately sabotaged by capital flight
organised by the “wealthier classes.” In other words, in order to allow
governments to tack and weave and make concessions to the demands of the
working class, it had to be protected from the destabilising effects produced
by an exodus of capital.
The Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, with its system of fixed exchange rates
between currencies and support for countries that ran into balance of payments
difficulties, together with the Marshall Plan (1947-50) for the economic
reconstruction of Europe which followed it, laid the foundations for a quarter
century of capitalist expansion the like of which had not been seen. Neither
before nor since has there been a period where the global economy has grown as
rapidly and the living standards of the working class, at least in the major
capitalist countries, advanced as much.
But the Bretton Woods system did not overcome the essential contradictions of
the capitalist economy. In fact, the very economic expansion it helped to
produce brought them to the surface and eventually led to the demise of the
regulated post-war order.
It is necessary to emphasise this point in the face of claims by proponents of
Keynesian regulation that there can be a return to the stability of the
post-war period and the social reformist policies which accompanied it, if only
agreement can be reached on some kind of revived Bretton Woods Agreement. The
advocates of this program, however, never examine why the original system
collapsed.
The history of this breakdown involves two interconnected processes—the
development of an increasingly global system of production and finance, and the
relative decline of the US within the Bretton Woods order and its move towards
a new regime based on the free movement of capital in order to maintain its
position of global hegemony.
The first cracks in the economic order were quite small, arising from the
emergence of what was called the Euro dollar market at the end of the 1950s.
The initial agreement on currency values had provided for free convertibility.
But that proved to be impossible until 1958. The approach of the free
conversion deadline saw the development of a crisis of sterling in 1957 to
which the British government responded, as it was entitled under the Bretton
Woods setup, with restrictions on capital movements.
This decision, however, cut across the operations of the British banks. Fearful
of being eclipsed by their trans-Atlantic rivals if the measures of their
government forced them to cut back on international lending, they moved to
circumvent the restrictions. Instead of using sterling to finance international
transactions, they used the dollars deposited with them instead and found a way
to continue their international operations despite the sterling controls.
For its part the British government had an ambivalent attitude to the
development of this new financial market. On the one hand national policy
dictated the need for financial controls, while on the other it was keen to
ensure that London remained a centre of international finance.
By this time another contradiction, rooted in the very structure of the system,
was starting to emerge. Under the agreements of 1944 the American dollar
functioned as a virtual world currency, conferring great advantages on the US
vis-à-vis the other capitalist powers. These advantages were limited, at least
in theory, by the provision that the US dollar could be redeemed in gold at the
rate of $35 per ounce.
As is often the case with financial arrangements, the gold backing system
functioned very well so long as it was not actually tested. But it was founded
on a contradiction. The system would continue to operate while the mass of US
dollars circulating in the rest of the world was backed by gold held in the US.
But the very expansion of the international economy tended to increase the need
for international liquidity in the form of US dollars. That is, the more the
global economy expanded, the shakier became the relationship between the dollar
and gold.
In the 1960s, the dollar overhang—the difference between the dollars in
international circulation and the value of the gold backing held in Fort
Knox—began to grow as a result of increased US investment abroad and military
spending. US administrations imposed policies aimed at restricting capital
movements and like their British counterparts before them, US financial
interests found the Euro dollar market a useful means for circumventing the
actions of their own government.
US administrations also had an ambivalent attitude to the Euro dollar market.
While trying to restrict capital outflows to counter the balance of payments
deficit, the existence of the Euro dollar market meant that foreigners would be
more likely to keep their holdings in dollars, thereby easing the pressure on
the US currency.
However, the growth of the Euro dollar market had exactly the effect that
Keynes and Harry Dexter White, the chief US negotiator at Bretton Woods, had
foreshadowed. Growing amounts of finance capital were now able to move around
the world outside the control of governments. The system of fixed exchange
rates could not be sustained. The pound came under pressure in 1967, followed
by the dollar in 1968. In 1971, a qualitative change took place as the US, for
the first time since before World War I, experienced a balance of trade
deficit, leading to the Nixon announcement on August 15.
In the immediate aftermath of the decision there were attempts by Japan, as
well as the European powers, to resurrect the Bretton Woods system, at least in
some form, through the exercise of capital controls. The US opposed all such
measures because they would have restricted its freedom of operation both
internationally and at home.
Under Bretton Woods, or any other system of regulation, the US would have had
to take action to rectify the imbalances in its international position. One
method would have been to cut back military spending, particularly on the
Vietnam War. But this would have meant weakening the position of the US
vis-à-vis the other major powers. In 1971 an administration grouping under the
leadership of Paul Volcker (later to become chairman of the US Federal Reserve
Board) concluded that financing for US deficits has “permitted the United
States to carry out heavy overseas military expenditure and to undertake other
foreign commitments” and that an important goal was to “free ... foreign
policy from constraints imposed by weaknesses in the financial system.”
Looking back from the 1990s, Volcker commented that “presidents—certainly
Johnson and Nixon—did not want to hear that their options were limited by the
weakness of the dollar.”
Another way to reduce the balance of payments deficit, ease the pressure on the
dollar and so maintain a system of regulation would have been to cut spending
in the United States. But the consequences would have been to induce a severe
recession. Facing a rising tide of militancy in the working class, the student
radicalisation produced by the Vietnam War, and the rebellion of black youth in
the cities, this was not considered an option.
Moreover, there was considerable support for the view within US ruling circles
that if the system of controls on capital movements were scrapped, the US would
be able to maintain its hegemonic position because of its weight within the
world economy. Other nations would want to hold dollars because of the role it
played in the international monetary system. This outlook was summed up by the
treasury secretary in the Nixon administration, John Connally, in remarks to a
European audience as follows: “The dollar may be our currency but it’s your
problem.” Or, as he told an American audience: “Foreigners are out to screw
us. Our job is to screw them first.”
Those advocates of a return to regulation of the world capitalist economy, and
a policy of social reforms, as an antidote to the economic and social
devastation being caused by the domination of global financial markets, will no
doubt argue that the collapse of the Bretton Woods system was the outcome of
policy decisions.
Of course, had other policies been adopted, then events may have taken a
different course. But alternative policies would not have prevented the demise
of the Bretton Woods system, for its collapse was rooted in objective
tendencies of development. As one recent major study has noted: “It required
too much in terms of the coordination of national policies. Countries were more
and more committed to domestic growth, while at the same time the technological
forces that were driving economic growth required internationalization, of
goods markets but also of capital. The crisis of the Bretton Woods system can
be seen as a particular and very dramatic instance of the clash of national
economic regulation with the logic of internationalism. In the circumstances of
1971, the disruption of the system followed very obviously and directly from
the policies of the United States” [Harold James, International Monetary
Cooperation Since Bretton Woods, page 207].
The collapse of the Bretton Woods system was an initial expression of the
deepening contradiction between the inherent tendency of the productive forces
to develop on a global scale and the nation-state system.
The removal of the gold backing from the US dollar was rapidly followed by the
abolition of fixed currency relationships and the lifting of restrictions on
the movement of capital throughout the 1980s, as one country after another was
forced to abandon national controls under the pressure of international
markets.
The result has been a series of storms of mounting amplitude within the
international financial system. In 1987, differences between US and German
authorities over interest rate policies directly contributed to the October
stock market collapse. In order to prevent a global collapse, financial
authorities, led by the US Federal Reserve pumped liquidity into the
international financial system. These actions prevented a financial meltdown.
But they helped boost a financial bubble in Japan which eventually collapsed at
the beginning of the 1990s, dragging the economy ever deeper into an ocean of
bad debt.
The decade of the 1990s saw the sterling crisis of 1992, followed by the
turbulence in bond markets in 1994 and the Mexican bailout of 1994-95. Then
came the Asian crisis of 1997, followed by the Russian default of 1998 and
consequent threat to the US financial system in the wake of the collapse of
Long Term Capital Management in September 1998—a threat described by
president Clinton as the most serious financial crisis in 50 years.
These dangers seemed to disappear behind the hype of the “new economy”. But
not for long. The underlying tendencies in the global economy have re-emerged
with the collapse of the hi-tech finance bubble in the US and the growing signs
of world slump.
The Bretton Woods system was established in 1944 as the major capitalist powers
initiated a program of national regulation aimed at containing the
contradictions of the world economy and preventing the development of socialist
revolution.
Its demise in 1971 inaugurated a new stage, characterised by the development of
globalised production and the domination of an international financial market.
When the US pulled the rug from under the previous system it did so in order to
maintain its position of global hegemony in the new economic order which was
beginning to emerge. It managed to do so but at great cost.
The free market program it has so strenuously promoted over the past 30 years
has intensified all the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.
At the same time, starting with the unilateral decision of August 15, 1971, the
basis for collaboration between the major capitalist powers has been narrowing.
The combined impact of these two processes has created the conditions for major
economic, social and political upheavals in the world capitalist economy in the
period immediately ahead.
Top of page
Readers: The WSWS invites your comments. Please send e-mail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
Werner Hetzner
The only contradition Socialists fail to notice is between the promise and
the invariable financial and social hell-hole reality Socialist experiments
ends up as.
Who, besides your silly selves, actually gives a shit about your delusions
on what makes the world work? Everything you manage to touch turns gold to
garbage. But still you trot out the same old shit like it was just invented.
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
SocialEqualityUS <socialeq...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010816110831...@mb-fu.aol.com...
> When the Bretton Woods system collapsed
> By Nick Beams
> 16 August 2001
>
....>
Epsilon
news:IG%e7.286185$EF2.36...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
> It's always a hoot when Socialists pontificate about economics.
>
> The only contradition Socialists fail to notice is between the promise
> and the invariable financial and social hell-hole reality Socialist
> experiments ends up as.
Hmm, troll, what states experiments are those? I can think of some
Communist hell-holes, some Capitalist/fascist one's I wouldn't want to live
in. But which of, say, the European SOCIALIST states are you referring to?
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> The only contradition Socialists fail to notice is between the promise and
> the invariable financial and social hell-hole reality Socialist experiments
> ends up as.
So what's up with those public power district "hell holes" in places like
Nebraska and Los Angeles? They've been around for decades and work just
fine. Nebraska is all public (aka socialist) power and has some of the
cheapest and most reliable power supply in the nation. Sacramento's
Municipal Utility District has done an outstanding job and that after
having to decommission and now mothball that white elephant of a nuke
plant called Rancho Seco.
I'd say that it's because both have adequate feedback in the systems so
that when things go wrong they get corrected. Any system, capitalist or
socialist, needs to have a feedback system that functions properly to
make corrections as time goes on.
We can also see how well privatization has worked for British Rail and
for the Argentinian airlines. Not.
Seems to me that, as always, the devil is in the details of
implementation not absolutely in the particular system being used.
Nick Xylas
"Dee" <notava...@no2spamorg.org> wrote in message > We can also see how
well privatization has worked for British Rail and
> for the Argentinian airlines. Not.
>
paradise on Earth that untrammelled laissez faire capitalism brought about.
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Dee <notava...@no2spamorg.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.15e66606f...@news.compuserve.com...
> In article <IG%e7.286185$EF2.36...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
> whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
>
> > The only contradition Socialists fail to notice is between the promise
and
> > the invariable financial and social hell-hole reality Socialist
experiments
> > ends up as.
>
> So what's up with those public power district "hell holes" in places like
> Nebraska and Los Angeles? They've been around for decades and work just
> fine. Nebraska is all public (aka socialist) power and has some of the
> cheapest and most reliable power supply in the nation. Sacramento's
> Municipal Utility District has done an outstanding job and that after
> having to decommission and now mothball that white elephant of a nuke
> plant called Rancho Seco.
>
You might as well name some monestaries as good examples of socialism. There
are exceptions to nearly every rule and pattern.
> I'd say that it's because both have adequate feedback in the systems so
> that when things go wrong they get corrected. Any system, capitalist or
> socialist, needs to have a feedback system that functions properly to
> make corrections as time goes on.
>
Capitalism does have feedback. It's called profit and loss. Socialism does
not.
> We can also see how well privatization has worked for British Rail and
> for the Argentinian airlines. Not.
>
Since 1990 the government has pursued a bold reform agenda
The [December] election signals the end of the Carlos Menem era, at least
for now. Even Menem's opponents admit that during his 10-year tenure as
President, he helped transform Argentina from a backwater into a modern
nation. When he took office in July, 1989, inflation was a staggering 200%
per month and the economy was closed and inefficient. Menem privatized state
enterprises, from the railroads to the phone company. With the help of
then-Economy Minister Cavallo, Menem implemented the currency board, which
pegged the currency to the U.S. dollar, and essentially prohibited the
government from printing money to cover deficits. As a result, the economy
grew an average of nearly 8% over four years, and inflation dropped to
virtually nothing.
and this from
Menem took office in 1989 with the country wracked by 5,000 percent annual
hyperinflation and food riots.
He and his former economy minister, Domingo Cavallo, embarked on a sweeping
overhaul of the state-run economy, selling off debt-ridden utilities and
deregulating the economy.
and this from
These achievements did not come easily. They required the remaking of the
Argentine economy, the revamping of policy, and the rehabilitation of the
nation's financial institutions. During Mr. Menem's two terms (1989 to
1999), nearly every state-owned industry was privatized; barriers to imports
and foreign investment were dismantled; and, for the first time in
generations, discipline was imposed on government spending.
I don't have time to look at Britain.
> Seems to me that, as always, the devil is in the details of
> implementation not absolutely in the particular system being used.
That is so. Socialism can't be implemented because it is fundamentally
corrupting.
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Epsilon <NOMail@Thanks> wrote in message
news:Xns91001A5323...@207.126.101.100...
There is still lots of private property in Europe. But whenever industries
are socialized, as in Britain, worker greed destroys them and they have to
be re-privatized to survive. Most of Western Europe is marginally Socialist.
Taxes are high to fund welfare state. Most, perhaps all, are now having
difficulty. The more socialist, the more difficulty. I recently visited
Germany. There is a lot of dissatisfaction with the liberal policies which
many take advantage of to get benefits at the expense of others.
How many unions buy factories? Why do you suppose that is?
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> You might as well name some monestaries as good examples of socialism. There
> are exceptions to nearly every rule and pattern.
Yes there are which is why your absolutist statements about socialism are
so much bunk.
> Capitalism does have feedback. It's called profit and loss. Socialism does
> not.
Tell that to the guys on the public power district's boards when they
stand for election. You'd better believe if they've screwed up in the
slightest bit there will be people to take their place via the ballot by
upset "investors".
And those directly elected (in most cases) directors will make heads roll
if the management of the public power district doesn't perform it's
functions adequately.
Sure seems like feedback in the system to me. Perform or we'll find
someone who can.
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Dee <notava...@no2spamorg.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.15e7e7c36...@news.compuserve.com...
Tell it to the guyes on the pulic ...? You have to be delusional. Here, the
utility went to court for overassessment and won. My city can no longer just
tax them as much as they want and directed to give back a lot of the
overtaxation. Instead the city is taking over the utility by eminent
domain.
It will be no surprise to me when the utility becomes another patronage mill
for the Democratic party like the wate and sewer department. We have the
highest water rates around the four county Capital District area, the water
fails some health tests, and the water department is still losing money that
needs to be subsideized from the genral fund.
Don't even get me started on the schools. They get more expensive and worse
every year. The police force? A farce! Administration? PC are bought and
then disappear. Dep of Pub Wrks - another corruption bureau. The fire Dept.?
A drain on the taxbase.
Tell me more about this accountability to the people dream you have.
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> Tell me more about this accountability to the people dream you have.
They've been doing just fine with direct election of public power
district representatives since the early part of the last century. Must
take some time to get to the ever so clever big city scenes. Here's how
this "dream" has worked for a very long time.
http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/bluebook/localgov/electric.htm
http://www.theindependent.com/election/nppd.html
http://www.twinvalleysppd.com/general.htm
http://www.state.ne.us/home/SOS/Elections/ppds.htm
---------------
LES Ranking Improves to Sixth Lowest
http://www.les.com/les_news/news_rel_display.asp?inpt_Article=29
"A survey of 2001 electric rates in 106 U.S. cities shows the ranking of
rates paid by Lincoln Electric System (LES) customers at sixth lowest,
the lowest in the history of the survey, according to Rich Andrysik,
supervising engineer, Consumer Services Division.
The survey, conducted on behalf of LES by KPMG LLP, a major U.S. public
accounting firm, compared electric bills at various usage levels for
rates in effect January 1, 2001. Last year, the survey showed LES rates
ranked eighth lowest.
The last LES rate increase was in seven years ago, Andrysik said. Rates
today are comparable to LES' rates in the mid-1980s. Since 1985, LES
customers have seen two rate decreases totaling 10 percent, and two
increases totaling 7 percent, leaving today's rates lower.
LES rates have ranked in the lowest 10 percent for 14 consecutive years,
he said. The first survey was completed in 1982."
--------------------
And whatever you do, don't look at that socialist mess that the Non-
Partisan League of North Dakota left up in that hell hole of
unaccountable Reds. <g>
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/award97/ndfahtml/ngp_nd_politics.html
http://www.banknd.com/
"Bank of North Dakota, located in Bismarck, ND, is the only state-owned
bank in the nation. Its mission, established by legislative action in
1919, is to encourage and promote agriculture, commerce and industry in
North Dakota. In this role, the Bank acts as a funding resource in
partnership with other financial institutions, economic development
groups and guarantee agencies.
The Bank of North Dakota continues to set new records for profitability.
Net income for the year 2000 totaled over $32.6 million."
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Dee <notava...@no2spamorg.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.15e88200b...@news.compuserve.com...
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> I'm really glad things are going well for you in Nebraska.
I don't live in Nebraska or North Dakota. But thanks anyhow.
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Dee <notava...@no2spamorg.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.15e8bd73f...@news.compuserve.com...
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> Where do you live? Sacramento?
None of your business and nope.
Epsilon
> That is so. Socialism can't be implemented because it is fundamentally
> corrupting.
Whew! I'm sure glad I live in a capitalist system that isn't fundamentally
corrupting. Now excuse me, I have a congressman to buy...
Nick Xylas
something. The neoliberal policies advocated by Tony Blair (and Margaret
Thatcher before him) in this country, have been described as "socialism for
the rich, capitalism for the poor" in that the government spends billions of
pounds of taxpayers money on corporate welfare while denying the same
welfare benefits to those who really need it. So maybe socialism *is*
fundamentally corrupting and that's why the corrupt rich approve of it for
themselves.
"Epsilon" <NOMail@Thanks> wrote in message
news:Xns9103BF9FEB8...@207.126.101.100...
Epsilon
news:qrxg7.11667$JY1.7...@news1.cableinet.net:
The more fundamental point is that power corrupts, as the saying goes. It
is an accurate addage. The problem as we have it today is that statist
policies concentrate power in the hands of the state, and the corruption
concentrates there. I suppose if I had more power that I might get a bit
more corrupt myself, but I'm not too worried about that just yet.
So, where was I? Ah, statist policies. Under pure socialism or
libertarianism, these go away. If you aren't holding your breath, neither
am I. So, I like the Green cure. Shift what statist policies we have in
favor of labor, a clean environment, and health care. But also foster
grassroots democracy. Our republic in the US sucks wind right now, and more
control in the hands of the citizenry would be a good thing.
The truth is, nobody has a formula that will avoid
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
...> >
>
> The more fundamental point is that power corrupts, as the saying goes. It
> is an accurate addage. The problem as we have it today is that statist
> policies concentrate power in the hands of the state, and the corruption
> concentrates there. I suppose if I had more power that I might get a bit
> more corrupt myself, but I'm not too worried about that just yet.
>
> So, where was I? Ah, statist policies. Under pure socialism or
> libertarianism, these go away. If you aren't holding your breath, neither
> am I. So, I like the Green cure. Shift what statist policies we have in
> favor of labor, a clean environment, and health care. But also foster
> grassroots democracy. Our republic in the US sucks wind right now, and
more
> control in the hands of the citizenry would be a good thing.
>
>
>
So power corrupts, but specific power (labor, environmental, health care) is
above corruption?
Epsilon
No.
Cameron L. Spitzer
>"Werner Hetzner" <whet...@nycap.rr.com> purportedly wrote
>news:tDNg7.360507$T97.40...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
>
>>[attribution deleted by Werner Hetzner]
>>>
>>> So, where was I? Ah, statist policies. Under pure socialism or
>>> libertarianism, these go away. If you aren't holding your breath,
>>> neither am I. So, I like the Green cure. Shift what statist policies
>>> we have in favor of labor, a clean environment, and health care. But
>>> also foster grassroots democracy. Our republic in the US sucks wind
>>> right now, and more control in the hands of the citizenry would be a
>>> good thing.
>>
>> So power corrupts, but specific power (labor, environmental, health
>> care) is above corruption?
>
>No.
Power corrupts. There is no way around that. But there is a mitigation.
Power corrupts less when it is decentralized and democratically controlled.
I think this is the fundamental error the smash-the-state people make.
Smashing the state doesn't increase democracy. It almost always
decreases it, because the least democratic people, the thugs, almost
always win the race to replace the smashed state with a new state.
That's why smash-the-state is not a viable solution to the societal
problems the Marxists have identified. Marx and Trotsky were great
analysts, but lousy designers.
Cameron
Social Equality
=====
From my readings on Marx and Trotsky, they are not "smash the state" types.
They may want to "Smash the capitalist or bourgeois system", but both
advocated the working class not smashing the state, but forming their own
independent political party and sieze control of the political machine
themselves. Marx was also purposefully vague in his "designs" for a future
society, noting such things as "utopian". Marx noted that the Paris Commune
was dictatorship of the proletarian, anarchists claim the Paris Commune as
an
example of anarchy in action.
In fact, anarchists and Marxists clash on this very aspect, as to whether
the
state can be used as a mechanism of change for the working class, or just
another apparatus of power.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append3.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secHcon.html
Epsilon
news:slrn9o81o9....@truffula.sj.ca.us:
"Smash the state" is a good card. So is "goldfish fanciers". If you don't
know what I'm talking about, carry on and pay no attention to the man
behind the curtain ;-)
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Cameron L. Spitzer <spam...@petra.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9o81o9....@truffula.sj.ca.us...
> In article <Xns91056251292...@207.126.101.100>, Epsilon wrote:
> >"Werner Hetzner" <whet...@nycap.rr.com> purportedly wrote
> >news:tDNg7.360507$T97.40...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com:
> >
>
> Power corrupts. There is no way around that. But there is a mitigation.
> Power corrupts less when it is decentralized and democratically
controlled.
>
The folks in the Upper Hudson would probably agree with that. They don't
want the EPA to dredge.
So why do the Greens actively work against those people and demand the
federal centralized governemt EPA dredge against those peoples' will?
> I think this is the fundamental error the smash-the-state people make.
> Smashing the state doesn't increase democracy. It almost always
> decreases it, because the least democratic people, the thugs, almost
> always win the race to replace the smashed state with a new state.
> That's why smash-the-state is not a viable solution to the societal
> problems the Marxists have identified. Marx and Trotsky were great
> analysts, but lousy designers.
>
>
> Cameron
>
>
Aparently the local Greens don't see it your way. So there must be
exceptions to decentralization. It seems there is not just one exception -
health insurance, wage policy, SS, public education ... pretty much
everything is supposed to be centralized instead of decentralized. Or am I
reading it wrong?
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> Aparently the local Greens don't see it your way. So there must be
> exceptions to decentralization. It seems there is not just one exception -
> health insurance, wage policy, SS, public education ... pretty much
> everything is supposed to be centralized instead of decentralized. Or am I
> reading it wrong?
Or you don't read it at all.
I already noted the centralization, decentralization and democratization
issues in an earlier post on Green economics.
Go back and read it again if you didn't get it the first time.
There's nothing socialist or centralized about democratic worker-owner
businesses. Get over it. <g>
Werner Hetzner
--
------------------------------------------------------
visit http://www.1marketsquare.com
It's there for you.
It can be your neighborhood market...
or your community square.
-------------------------------
Dee <notava...@no2spamorg.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.15ee165e2...@news.compuserve.com...
I was responding to Cameron.
As for you, check out:
http://www.greens.org/ny/platform/
maybe it means the decentralized workers will want a centralized socialism
because I don't see anything about a worker-owned health care or a worker
owned anything.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any law that does not allow democratic
worker-owner businesses. So what is your beef? Own one.
Dee
whet...@nycap.rr.com says...
> As for you, check out:
> http://www.greens.org/ny/platform/
> maybe it means the decentralized workers will want a centralized socialism
> because I don't see anything about a worker-owned health care or a worker
> owned anything.
Like I said before, you seem to have a reading problem. From your own
reference:
"Economic Democracy
Economic power must be transferred from corporate and state ownership to
democratic forms of ownership and control: worker and consumer
cooperatives, decentralized and democratic public enterprise, non-profit
community development projects, and small individual businesses."
> Furthermore, I am not aware of any law that does not allow democratic
> worker-owner businesses. So what is your beef? Own one.
There's no beef that you can't develop one (although there are some legal
issues in some states for these particular kinds of organizations that
need to be addressed) since they obviously exist. The question is if
they should be encouraged in lieu of the current fetishism of the other
parties on centralized and undemocratic state or private concerns.