newbie
undisambiguated
yes history. yes conditions. indeed yes trajectory.Well, these are largely down to Europes history of workers struggles, a comparatively early developing industrial working class that flexed its muscles and imposed various kinds of settlement upon capital. These have, unsurprisingly, contradictory results - the place of TU's on German boards means some of the worst practises of international capital may be avoided, but only at a price of a wider social 'peace' - which is obviously far from perfect, and also breaking down now (the NU refused to have such a deal here in the mines, by the by). There is no inherent difference between the two models - and Germany is different even within Europe, exploiting its dominant economic position to be the one country in the EU that really benefits from neolib rules with its trade surplus - but the history of those struggles mean capital has a slightly different starting point.
But now is now and if Monbiot is right, and I think he's made good points, one of the aspects of the choice in front of us is which plutocracy we wish to be most closely aligned with. Unless there's an immediate and huge capital shift, for the next while we'll have British capitalists trying to push politicans to create conditions that suit them. British capitalists that take their cues from role models abroad. Did anyone but me read the articles about Bamford and JCB workers up there ^^? or Ashley, or BHS... Are their cues coming from the German model or the American one?
In theory I agree with you, capital is indivisible, all it cares about is profit. But this isn't about theory, it's about real people and their lives.