What do pen-l'ers make of the argument propounded by pro-EMU social democrats
that w/o EMU global financial markets will discipline expansionary/welfare
initiatives, and at the very least w/EMU some weak version of EC-wide
expansionary/welfare initiatives can be achieved, as long as the EC central
bank does not resemble the Bundesbank ? I don't necessarily agree with this
line of thought, but I do think that simply arguing that social democrats
are collaborating with globalization and flexibilization and austerity and
so on via the EMU is insufficient. "Marxists" such Germany's Altvater and
Spain's Alier have endorsed EMU in accord with the above logic (see upcoming
edition of _Capitalism, Nature, Socialism_).
Another question: how do proponents of the 35-hour week in Italy, France, and
the Netherlands realistically think it will be possible to pay workers who
work only 35 hours for 40 hours' work ? Unless there is a massive increase
in productivity (so that the rate of surplus value extraction remains more or
less the same) won't there be a capital strike, or diversion of capital into
the financial sector, or somesuch thing ?
Waiting w/bated breath for answers,
John Gulick
Ph. D. Candidate
Sociology Graduate Program
University of California-Santa Cruz
(415) 643-8568
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
