This is not a split within capital for the simple reason that there is no singular bloc of capital. Regardless of high degree of coordinations through various bodies they still remain essentially splintered on "national lines. The current episode graphically illustrates that. No doubt, it is much easier for Obama to vituperate against the BP than against the GM or GE. And it's just not Obama or Cameron for that matter, the US and UK media, virtually en bloc, have reacted very differently along "national" fault line. That's pretty much instructive.
The other, relevant and crucial, point is that the "bourgeois democratic" state is not, repeat not, (never mind the angels and sages) a plain and simple lever in the hands of capital - "national" or "global". It is also a space for contestations among, and even within, different interest groups for control over the lever. Of course, capital has a distinct edge, but that's not absolute. Mass mobilisation can neutralise that advantage, even if it happens rather infrequently - particularly on the national scale. (But local and limited victories are quite common.) So, what we've is a dynamic equilibrium. The current flux in Latin America illustrates that like nothing else. Sukla P.S.: May like to look up 'Bourgeois Democratic State and “Democratic” Space – Strategies to Manoeuvre and Master' at < http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article16852>. On 19 June 2010 08:34, Peter Robson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This would make some kind of sense of Obama was doing anything serious > about > BP, instead of covering up its crimes. > > Admittedly his mild rhetoric too much for some in the elite, but claiming > this is a "split" in capital is an overstatement. Obama has to rely on > popular support to be elected, which means his job is to calm down those > masses who want real action against BP. That is all he's doing. > > The British PM and that arsehole Branson don't need popular support in the > US, so they can be more obvious in supporting BP. (Branson asked Obama to > not kick BP when its down, which really oughtta be a tundrel statement.) > > This is a variation in the different tactics necessary to maintain the rule > of capital, NOT a split within capital. > > > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Sukla Sen > <[email protected]<sukla.sen%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > > The myth of "global capital" stands busted once again. There obtains a > gulf > > of difference in the (elite) attitudes towards the BP in the context of > > Gulf > > oil spill. > > No prize for guessing who's on which side. > > Obama was even charged of racism. He publicly pronounced that he was > > looking > > for an ass to kick. (You know whose.) David Cameron had to pick up the > > phone. > > > > Despite emergence a large number of transnational/multinational giant > > corporations, the "national" stamp on capital - strong links with the > > national governments, remains too important even today. > > Unmistakably so, when the chips are down. > > > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB.
