There are several other features of the new SSA that seem to be developing:
REGULATION: Although there is deregulation there is also increasing
regulation in the interests of large capitals. For example, there is increasing
lengths of patent protection and strict enforcement of such
protection. This is evident for example in agriculture where there are fierce
legal battles over gene modification technology and also the patenting of new
plants including many that have been genetically modified. Farmers are becoming
more dependent upon seed that is covered under patent and breeder's rights
legislation. This will become increasingly important not only in plant breeding
but in animal husbandry as well. Often genetic modification by a company may
be designed to make herbicides made by the same company applicable to the
altered grain without damage. So there is increasing regulation to protect
large corporations from competition, through extension and
legal enforcement of monopoly rights. On the other hand, there will be
deregulation in the same area if it threatens the profit of large capitalists.
An example of this is the abolition of compulsory licencing of patented
pharmaceuticals in Canada. This allowed generics to manufacture patented
drugs when it was judged that the patent-holders were charging monopoly
prices.(The generic companies had to pay a "royalty" to the patent holders)
NAFTA results in more regulations that benefit members of NAFTA-
some more than others. For example Canada must not price energy for export
to the US above that of the domestic market. There must be compensation if
private companies loose business through a country nationalising a service.
(For example, if the Ontario NDP had introduced public auto insurance.) These
are just samples. I am sure there are many more. I gather too that one country
cannot discriminate against another member country in awarding contracts.
There is a dual process of deregulation that promotes the flow of global
capital and discourages regulation for social purposes in favor of letting
market forces hold sway but at the same time there are contrary regulations
that are not market oriented at all but solely profit oriented.
So one has differential
treatment of members versus non-members of members of NAFTA, and other trading
blocs. This requires further regulation not-deregulation. Similarly the
increase in patent protection is designed to promote profits and discourage
global competition not enhance it.
THE SMALLER BUT MORE POWERFUL STATE. While there is often a devolution
of power and decrease in power of the central state particularly to resist
the neo-liberal agenda, there seems to be an increase in the power of the state
in some respects often at the provincial or state level in countries that
have federated systems such as Canada. In New Zealand the state now exerts
much greater control over education in the name of the state being the agent
of the public. The standard line seems to me that the public interest is
hijacked by teachers' unions and local school boards. The power of both has
been very much restricted. In New Brunswick in Canada the same process of
centralizing power is evident. In Manitoba we have a bill pending that in
the name of sustainable development will allow a minister of the government to
override local municipalities rejection of a project. This seems particularly
designed to promote large industries that may be unpopular in a municipality
such as large feedlots or large hog producers. In health care there has
been a regionalisation of health care to negate the power of local boards of
hospitals etc. This is all done in the name of efficiency and even in
the name of decentralisation. However in many provinces regional boards
are run by govt. appointees and even where the boards are elected as in Sask.
under the NDP their freedom of action is severely curtailed by the control of
the purse by the central government.
I think that the general trend is that although the national state
is losing some of its powers to introduce social programmes in response to
public pressure, it is not losing any of its power to regulate on a national
basis where such regulation will increase the power and dominance of global
capital or further the neo-liberal agenda.
The state is still the prime regulator in many areas and is even
increasing its power. Note that there seems to be no decline at all in
the police apparatus but an increase in the activities of courts and police
and increasing expenditure in this area. At least there is in Canada and the US
is even more inclined to build jails and increase sentences.
In certain areas the state is more powerful and regulates more,
while in others its power is shrinking and it regulates less.
One of the prime ideological weapons for selling the new SSA has
been the debt bogey. This has enabled neo-liberals to justify cutting
social programmes and also to convince people that governments cannot afford
social programmes. It is astonishing that many young people interviewed in
Canada do not expect that there will be anything like the Canada Pension Plan
we now have in place when they retire. As long as there is no alternative
model to capitalism the welfare state can be dismantled, and the dismantling
sold as necessary to preserve the G-String as an affordable safety-net
providing a covering of decency for capitalisms' nakedness.
CHeers, Ken Hanly
