Crisis and Retrenchment

"Now in human society, in social development, situations constantly arise in which what yesterday appeared rational suddenly no longer agrees with the facts, and we are faced with the equivalent in the social sphere of the upward-flying stone."(1)

Introduction

It is not a coincidence that both the states of Ireland and Canada are pushing to promote the role of the voluntary and non-profit sectors in the same period of world history. In order to understand this phenomenon, one must look to an underlying category that unites both states in the concrete totality of social relations. As the Irish Marxist, Kieran Allen so eloquently puts it,

"When these projects are examined, it soon becomes clear that Boston and Berlin (or Ottawa and Dublin) have far more in common than is supposed to divide them. In brief, the notion that there is a specifically 'European model' or 'social partnership model' which offers a real alterative to neo-liberalism needs to be critically questioned."(2)

This paper will argue that the accords are rhetorical and primarily express a crisis in the capital relation. In short, they are the ideological justification for the implementation of neo-liberal policies. It is held that these documents "are ideological devices to mask a major transfer of wealth to the already privileged sections of Irish society."(3) That is, these accords are not neo-liberal in the conventional sense. Rather, they implicitly promote diminished spending on social services and increased intervention in industry. As Kieran Allen points out, common analysis "fails to look at the underlying dynamic of the wider system of late capitalism and, therefore, is unable to distinguish between different rhetorical forms used by political elites and the actual projects they seek to promote."(4)

This paper will address the relationship between late capitalism, the state's current retrenchment policies and its consequent promotion of the voluntary sector as expressed in Ireland's White Paper on a Framework for Supporting Voluntary Activity and for Developing the Relationship between the State and the Community and Voluntary sector and An Accord Between the Government of Canada and the Voluntary Sector. It is held that the retrenchment of social services by the state and its promotion of the voluntary and non-profit sectors are the result of a crisis in capital accumulation. John Holloway writes,

"Thus, to take an obvious example, it is clear that the present attempt by British capital to raise the rate of surplus value does not simply mean the introduction of new technology or the announcement of wage cuts by individual employers: what is involved is rather a very long and extremely complex struggle conducted at all levels, embracing such elements as the repeated attempt to restructure the relations between trade unions and the state and within the trade unions themselves (Donovan Commission, In Place of Strife, Industrial Relations Act, Social Contract), massive ideological campaigns (on productivity, inflation, etc.), changes in state expenditure and taxation, the complex interplay of political parties, plans to introduce worker directors, etc., etc."(5)

It will be argued that the state and economy are particular attributes of the capital relation and that they are, therefore, united on this basis. The division between economic and political life, and the ensuing apparent autonomy of the state are historically necessary illusions. Once these premises are established, it will be argued that there is a crisis in the capital relation, which has resulted in the retrenchment of state services, such as healthcare, etc. In this context, the state has been promoting the voluntary sector to fill in the void left in the ebb of statutory social security.

The paper will first discuss the analytical concepts stemming from the orthodox Marxist tradition and their relation to the thesis of this paper. After a thorough discussion of the analytical method used, the paper will go on apply this method with the aim of establishing a contextual framework, which will situate the accords in the context of global capitalist social relations of production. Once the context has been established, an analysis of the actual documents will be performed in order to highlight specific examples of the neo-liberal rhetoric contained in these accords and relate these examples to the crisis in the capital relation and the resulting movement towards retrenchment.

In examining the relation between contemporary capitalism, the state and the voluntary sector, the author will use the historical materialist method as articulated by its founder, Karl Marx, and carried on and explicitly developed by the brilliant Hungarian Marxist, György Lukács. Although these philosophers never directly addressed the issue of the voluntary sector, they established a methodology and set of analytical concepts, which help us to come to terms with such sociological phenomena.

Capital and the immanence of crisis

Marx begins his famous work Capital with an analysis of the commodity form. This is not accidental, as this starting point provides the first logical step by which one can deconstruct capitalist society. The commodity form permeates all realms of social life in one way or another and it is a testament to the fact that society hides its most profound secrets on the surface. It is necessary, therefore, to understand that Capital is not solely about the economy(6), but a philosophically informed account of capitalist society in its totality. Lukacs addresses this directly in his early work History and Class Consciousness, where he states that "the problem of commodities must not be considered in isolation or even regarded as the central problem in economics, but as the central, structural problem of capitalist society in all its aspects."(7)

This essay will make an attempt at addressing the issue of retrenchment in relation to the totality of social relations in capitalism. The primary category for consideration will be the commodity form, which necessitates a brief analysis and summary of the Marxist understanding of the capitalist relations of production and the various contradictions which these entail, perpetuate, and recreate. Furthermore, a brief analysis of the state and its relation to capital is also necessary in order to draw out the necessity of the permeation of the existing crisis through civil society and the state.

The author will now attempt to give a brief description of the Marxist understanding of capitalism. According to the Marxist school of thought, capitalism requires three main components: capital, wage-labour, and generalized commodity production.(8) Under conditions of generalized commodity production, in which the means of production are held in the hands of a minority capitalist class, the working class is forced to sell its labour-power(9) (its commodity(10)) to the capitalist class in order to subsist.(11)

Marx began Capital with an analysis of the commodity form. The commodity form is so essential to capitalism, that without an understanding of it and its contradictory nature, any deconstruction of the capitalist system of production leads to mysticism. According to Marx, a commodity is something that has both an exchange-value and a use-value.(12) An exchange-value is the common denominator that allows one commodity to be exchanged for another, whereas use-value is the usefulness of a commodity to us, whether it "springs from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference."(13) In production, the exchange-value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labour-time embodied in it.(14)

Marxists hold that during the process of production, the worker, in setting the means of production in motion, works part of the day for her or himself and part of the day for the capitalist. This extra time that the worker works over what is required for his or her subsistence is, expressed in terms of value, called surplus-value. This is a simplified explanation of what Marx calls exploitation.(15)

In order to keep pace with competing capitalists, the capitalist is forced to reinvest part of her surplus-value in the development of new technologies, in order that she may conquer new markets and so on.(16) This means, however, that as technology develops, more and more workers are forced to be excluded from the process of production. This, in turn is detrimental for the extraction of surplus-value, as it is created by the workers themselves. Marx expresses this contradiction in the organic composition of capital.

The organic composition of capital is expressed formulaically by C/V. That is, constant capital (means of production and technologies) over variable capital (human labour). Constant capital transfers value to commodities at a constant rate, whereas variable capital does not. As constant capital is developed, variable capital is pushed out of the production process and profits (the external expression of surplus-value) are forced downward. This is called the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and leads to such problems as over production and crises in capital accumulation.

The preceding understanding is an absolutely necessary prerequisite to understanding the inherent crises latent in the capital relation. These crises will be shown to permeate the state and, consequently, affect the voluntary sector. The author will now draw out the relation between the capitalist relations of production and the state.

The State and crisis

Modern philosophers and political scientists hold the state to be an autonomous arbitrating entity, which is above and separate from civil society. This view contrasts starkly with the position held by Marxists. Although Marxist interpretations vary, this author holds that one of the best understandings of the state has grown out of the '70s debate stemming from John Holloway and Sol Picciotto's article Capital, Crisis and the State. In this article they describe the state as,

"a particular phenomenal form of social relations which has its genesis in that same capitalist form of exploitation. This implies, firstly, that a materialist theory of the state begins not by asking in what way the 'economic base' determines the 'political superstructure', but by asking what is it about the relations of production under capitalism that makes them assume separate economic and political forms."(17)

Holloway and Picciotto explain that the modern bourgeois state has its genesis in capitalist production. The implications of this are best demonstrated when contrasted with the Feudal state. In Feudal life, there was no distinction between political and economic realms. A serf was a serf both politically and economically, just as the lords enjoyed certain rights and privileges according to their relation to production. The oppressive mechanisms of the state were not divorced from productive life.

In capitalism, however, there is an apparent rift between the state and civil society. One is formally equal under the law(18), but unequal in the realm of production. The reason for this is that, as explained above, capitalism requires free labour and the concentration of capital in the hands of a minority. Since labour is free, it can move from one capitalist to the next as it wills. The problem arises, because class-society necessitates an oppressive apparatus to keep class-antagonisms in check. Due to the free movement of labour, oppression cannot occur on the level of the individual capital. Therefore, the state becomes abstracted from the productive process and comes to occupy a position seemingly above and independent from civil society. The state, then, is a particular attribute or phenomenal form of the capital relation.(19) This is important to understand in relation to crisis. Since the state is an attribute of the capital relation, a crisis in the latter necessitates a crisis in the former.

Crisis and the non-profit and voluntary sectors

The promotion of the non-profit and voluntary sectors, which is occurring across the industrialized world signals a crisis in capitalist accumulation.

"Since the end of the golden age of capitalism and in the early 1970s, the economics of both the EU and the United States have faced declining growth rates ... more frequent recessions, greater competition on a global arena and a decline in the rate of profit from manufacturing."(20)

In this context, the state is constantly bailing out big industry, while cutting social services, as "these changes necessitated measures to raise the levels of profits through greater state support for capital."(21) Kieran Allen makes this very clear in The Celtic Tiger, Inequality and Social Partnership,

"The culmination of efforts to reduce taxation on the corporate elite can be seen in the new proposals for corporation tax. In 1988, the year after the first partnership programme, the top tax rate on companies stood at 50 per cent. A decade later, that had declined to 32 per cent. This is now set to fall by a further 4 per cent a year until eventually the top rate of taxation on company profits will stand at 12.5 per cent. It is a testimony to the strength of the social partnership ideology that this has occurred without major debate; and that it seems to have the support of all major parties and even the leadership of the unions. Yet the ramification of these tax cuts for social spending have barely been discussed."(22)

Retrenchment in Ireland and Canada

It is in this context that Ireland's White Paper and Canada's Accord have been formulated as the ideological justification and practical solution to retrenchment. Furthermore, the voluntary sector provides an avenue by which class-struggle can be channelled and mitigated. As Allen notes, "discourse about 'social solidarity' and 'opposition to social exclusion' was a more appropriate way of carrying through a neo-liberal project in a country with strong unions."(23) Harry Braverman in Labor and Monopoly Capital writes,

"In other countries, principally the United States and Britain, the capitalist class had marked off for the government a more circumscribed sphere of operations, and for this and other reasons the growth of social and economic interventionism on the part of the state assumed, for a time, the peculiar shape of a movement for reform and appeared to develop as a struggle against capital, although this proved illusory. At any rate, in the end and in all places the maturing of the various tendencies of monopoly capitalism created a situation in which the expansion of direct state activities in the economy could not be avoided."(24)

Furthermore,

"Characteristically, the disputes within the capitalist class over this issue, including disagreements over the scale, scope and auspices of the welfare measures to be adopted offer an arena for political agitation which engages the working population as well, and offers a substitute for the revolutionary movement which would soon gain ground if the rulers followed a more traditional laissez-faire course."(25)

These state activities diminish social spending, while bailing out large industry in the face of crisis,

"What is significant in the present 'cuts' in state expenditure is not so much any reduction in state activity as the attempt to 'functionalise' the state for the accumulation of capital. The denunciation of state expenditure by the bourgeoisie goes hand in hand with demands for more aid to industry."(26)

The crisis laden capital relation necessitates a crisis in the state and directs state involvement in social spending towards aid to industry in civil society. In this way, the turbulent crisis in the capital relation is temporarily capped - until the next crisis.

Both the Irish White Paper and the Canadian Accord are bourgeois documents. The state represents the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole and consequently the content of these documents expresses the particular rationality of the bourgeois state which is determined by its class-character. As György Lukács states,

"Since our thoughts always depend on your social position and stand in relationship to it, situations continually arise in history in which major social classes and major thinkers representing them react, in certain cases, by considering and condemning the new social relationships and the new development of society from the standpoint of the old ratio."(27)

In the above selection, Lukács is referring to the aristocratic class' attitude towards the newly emerging bourgeois social order in France, which saw this new social order as chaotic, incommensurate with human being, and irrational. This understanding is useful here, because it shows us that one's class determines the content of one's rationality. Therefore, the bourgeois state - representing the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole - is going to share its rationality. This rationality permeates these documents, regardless of their blatantly rhetorical nature.

For instance, the documents are supposed to be a rational approach to contemporary problems. This is true, but what is left out is that this is strictly bourgeois rationality and reflects the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole. Therefore, we have statements such as those found in Ireland's White Paper, section 5.12, "multi-annual funding allows for a more rational approach to planning service delivery and to processing of funding applications." This is, indeed, rational - but according to the rationality of the capitalist class.

An analysis of the documents

With this theoretical framework, it is possible to cut through both the Canadian Accord and the Irish White Paper to expose their common root in the crisis in capital accumulation. Although both texts may be framed and worded differently, they both have the same intention - i.e., the roll-back of state services in favour of industry. The texts are embedded in a particular rhetorical framework, which - at first glance - appears to be favourable to those in poverty. The fact, however, is that they are rhetorical and serve to further neo-liberal policies. The following selection from section 1.1 of the White Paper analysed under the theoretical lense aforementioned makes this apparent.

"The Government recognises the worth of every type of volunteerism and voluntary activity and does not believe that it should seek to regulate or be involved with every type of activity."

This document refers specifically to social-services, where volunteering is required; not industry. It is here where it becomes apparent that the state's apparent disinterest in the voluntary activity due to a recognition of its "worth" is entirely bogus. In fact, state resources have not diminished; they are being diverted to industry whenever it gets into trouble. So, when it comes to social spending, the state "does not believe that it should seek to regulate or be involved", but when there is a crisis in industry, Allen points out that "the institutions and networks which have developed over the ten-year period of social partnership have masked a process whereby resources are being transferred back to the wealthier sections of society."(28)

Furthermore, section 5.1 - 5.2 of the White Paper holds that,

"the priorities for statutory funding are activities undertaken by the Community and Voluntary sector that enable individuals facing disadvantage or discrimination to access and realise their rights and potential as members of society, or that provide key services required by groups with special needs."

This section expresses the fact, though not entirely explicitly, that there has been a shift in statutory funding from blanket aid to aid for people with so-called "special needs." This is yet another method by which social spending is redirected to industry. As John Holloway wrote in his article entitled Capital, Crisis and the State, "Thus the crisis has led not only to an increase in aid to industry, but also to a reorganisation of the way in which such aid is administered - a move away from blanket assistance to selective aid based on specific needs."(29)

Furthermore, along with this shift from blanket aid to special needs, there is an emphasis on enabling individuals to actualize their potential. Aside from the obvious philosophically existentialist implications of such a comment, this individualization of societal problems mystifies social processes and diverts focus from class-struggle.

Allen explains, "As Miliband has pointed out, 'class analysis is largely class struggle analysis' ... Such a perspective entails that poverty and inequality will only be challenged through critical opposition to those 'social partners' who have shifted resources to the privileged."(30)

This opposition, however, becomes more difficult when the government encourages diversity, as opposed to unity on the basis of class-struggle as is exemplified on page 7 of Canada's Accord with the rhetoric of "respecting the rich variety of cultures, languages, identities, interests, views, abilities, and communities in Canada." Both sections 3.28 and 4.1 respectively of Ireland's White Paper express the same values:

"The Government recognises and welcomes the diversity of the sector and recognises the right of the sector to develop structures to reflect the diversity of the sector."

"The Community and Voluntary sector is a very diverse Sector, made up of very many separate groups and organisations of widely differing size, constitution, resources and focus, working at local, regional or national level. This diversity demands a flexible and nuanced response."

Renowned linguist, anarchist, and critic of American policy, Noam Chomsky agrees whole-heartedly with this analysis. "This is a business-run society. Business is highly class-conscious; they're fighting a vicious class war, and they know it, and they want to keep people basically demoralized, and separated and atomized."(31)

The forces of social-democracy in Europe are much greater than those in Canada and the United States. For this reason, the European documents take on a particular language of solidarity in fighting a common struggle against poverty and social exclusion. This, of course, is also rhetorical, and serves to channel potential class struggle. As Allen points out,

"The strength of social democracy in Europe compared with that in the United States meant that far greater emphasis was placed on coopting social partners and brining them to see the necessity and 'inevitability' of news measures. This emphasis on social partnership is virtually institutionalised in the EU, in the Protocol on Social Policy, which has created the legal basis for the so-called 'Social Dialogue'."(32)

Allen holds that "the official documentation of the EU makes considerable play about concepts such as 'social solidarity' and removing forms of 'social exclusion'."(33) This is very well exemplified in section 1.5 of the White Paper,

"The Government regards statutory support of the Community and Voluntary sector as having an importance to the well-being of our society that goes beyond 'purchase' of services by this or that statutory agency. The Government's vision of society is one which encourages people and communities to look after their own needs - very often in partnership with statutory agencies - but without depending on the State to meet all needs."

In this language, the liberal ideology rears its ugly head. That is, it is implicitly understood that people should take responsibility for their own lives without "depending on the State to meet all needs."

Furthermore, the way in which these measures are seen as inevitable is implicit in the accords. In section 3.6 - 3.7 of the White Paper it is written: "However, the context in which these constitutionally-based powers and responsibilities are exercised is increasingly one of social partnership."

A brief look at the Canadian Accord results in similar rhetorical findings, such as is discussed on page 4,

"At the end of the millennium, globalization, an increasingly diverse population, new economic and social realities, and changing government roles resulted in increased pressure on the voluntary sector which in turn led the sector and the Government of Canada to search for better ways of working together and with others."

In this selection from the Accord one sees an implicit assumption that globalization and "new economic and social realities" are inevitable features of contemporary life and that we will have to work collectively to get through this new period. What is ignored, of course, is that although social spending has decreased, state spending has remained constant and funds are being redirected towards business. As Holloway points out, "the struggle is not just an economic struggle but a struggle aimed at the reorganisation of the whole complex of social relations of production."(34)

Not only is the growth of the voluntary section seen as inevitable, but its growth is not questioned. Section 4.4 of the White Paper holds that,

"the enormous growth in the Community and Voluntary sector in recent years has created increased needs for training and other technical supports to enable groups to do their work more effectively."

Thus, they will make the claim that there is growth in the voluntary sector, but, although they acknowledge an "increased pressure on the voluntary sector", they do not at all discuss why there has been this growth; and - indeed - they wish to further promote it.

The rhetoric insists that volunteering is a good thing and that it is central to a democratic society. This is an interesting claim made in a number of places, but most notably sections 4.28 - 4.31 of the White Paper:

"There is a need to promote the active involvement of people in Community and Voluntary groups as an essential component of a democratic society ... Volunteers make an enormous contribution to the well-being of society."

Furthermore,

"A key determinant of the health of society is the degree to which individuals are prepared to come forward to give of their own time on a voluntary basis. Measures that promote active participation by people in the community will be promoted. These will recognise the contribution of volunteers who are disadvantaged and the particular obstacles they face and support needs they have. Volunteer centres can be a vital ingredient of support for Community and Voluntary organisations at local level."

As is explicit in the above passage, voluntary activity is supposed to signal a healthy and properly democratic society. This author would hold just the opposite: The need for voluntary services signals an unhealthy society, which is unable to provide blanket security to its population due to inherent and perpetual political and economic crises. The notion that volunteering is necessary to a healthy and democratic society is a very clear expression of rhetoric used to obfuscate the bourgeois character of the accord.

In fact, what these accords reduce themselves to, is the offloading of social responsibility from the state onto the voluntary sector. "Community development is underpinned by a vision of self-help and community self-reliance."(35) Such a program - which does not see the root of social problems in the capitalist relations or production - is ultimately reducible to the promotion of the poor's administration of their own oppression.(36)

Conclusion

The state is an attribute of the capital relation. Therefore, all state activities reflect the interests of capital - the capitalist class as a whole. Furthermore, all crises which occur in the capital relation necessarily permeate the state. The state, then, is limited by the interests of the bourgeoisie as a whole and functions within the boundaries created by crises - i.e. it is a bourgeois state infused with a bourgeois rationality.

The White Paper and the Accord were written as the ideological justification for the implementation of neo-liberal policies - i.e., the rollback of statutory social security - in a period of crisis. These documents, then, express the statutory side of the crisis in the capital relation and are bourgeois in character.

This paper was an attempt to draw out and assess the rhetorical nature of a selection of text from the recent documents on the voluntary and community sectors of Ireland and Canada. It is held that the documents - though slightly different in content - express a crisis in global capitalism and the statutory measures of dealing with this crisis.

1. Pinkus, Theo, ed. Conversations with Lukács, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1975), 46-47

2. Allen, Kieran, "Neither Boston nor Berlin: Class Polarisation and Neo-Liberalism

in the Irish Republic", in C. Coulter and S. Coleman, eds., The End of Irish

History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, (New York: Manchester

University Press,2003), 56-73, 63

3. Allen, Kieran, "The Celtic Tiger, Inequality and Social Partnership," Administration 47, no. 2 (1999): 31-55, 52

4. Allen, Kieran, "Neither Boston nor Berlin: Class Polarisation and Neo-Liberalism

in the Irish Republic", in C. Coulter and S. Coleman, eds., The End of Irish

History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, (New York: Manchester

University Press,2003), 56-73, 63

5. Holloway, John, "Capital, Crisis and the State," Capital & Class no. 2 (1977): 76-101, 94

6. That is, it is not an economics textbook and it is profoundly misleading to speak of a "Marxist economics."

7. Lukács, Georg, History and Class Consciousness, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1971), 83

8. Carr, E.H., ed., Bukharin and Preobrazhensky: The ABC of Communism, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969), 68-81

9. In chapter 6 of Capital, Marx identifies labour-power as "the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description."

10. "We have thus discovered the social nexus on which the whole edifice of capitalist production is based, namely the commodity character of labour-power. The fact that labour-power is a commodity means that man sic functions as a thing, that his personal qualities and abilities are bought and sold like any other commodity ... This reification, the turning of a personality into a thing, is the measure of human degradation under capitalism." Kolakowski, Leszek, Main Currents of Marxism: 1 - The Founders, 281-282

11. Tucker, Robert C., The Marx-Engels Reader, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company), 204

12. Marx, Karl, Capital, (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961), 35-41

13. Ibid., 35

14. That is, the average amount of labour-time required to produced a commodity in society.

15. For a detailed analysis of this process, please see Marx's Capital, volume 1, chapter 9, section 1.

16. Marx, Karl, Capital, (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961), 579-609

17. Holloway, John, "Capital, Crisis and the State," Capital & Class no. 2 (1977): 76-101, 78

18. Ibid, 80

19. Ibid, 79

20. Allen, Kieran, "Neither Boston nor Berlin: Class Polarisation and Neo-Liberalism

in the Irish Republic", in C. Coulter and S. Coleman, eds., The End of Irish

History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, (New York: Manchester

University Press,2003), 56-73, 63

21. Ibid.

22. Allen, Kieran, "The Celtic Tiger, Inequality and Social Partnership," Administration 47, no. 2 (1999): 31-55, 49

23. Allen, Kieran, "Neither Boston nor Berlin: Class Polarisation and Neo-Liberalism

in the Irish Republic", in C. Coulter and S. Coleman, eds., The End of Irish

History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, (New York: Manchester

University Press,2003), 56-73, 71

24. Braverman, Harry, Labour and Monopoly Capital, (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974), 284-285

25. Ibid., 286-287

26. Holloway, John, "Capital, Crisis and the State," Capital & Class no. 2 (1977): 76-101, 96

27. Pinkus, Theo, ed. Conversations with Lukács, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1975), 46-47

28. Allen, Kieran, "The Celtic Tiger, Inequality and Social Partnership," Administration 47, no. 2 (1999): 31-55, 32

29. Holloway, John, "Capital, Crisis and the State," Capital & Class no. 2 (1977): 76-10, 96

30. Allen, Kieran, "The Celtic Tiger, Inequality and Social Partnership," Administration 47, no. 2 (1999): 31-55, 52

31. Chomsky, Noam. "Noam Chomsky Speaks on NAFTA, the media, activism, the Internet, Haiti, Chiapas, Bosnia, and Burundi," http://cyberspacei.com/jesusi/authors/chomsky/interviews/9403-wrct.html, March 9th, 1994.

32. Allen, Kieran, "Neither Boston nor Berlin: Class Polarisation and Neo-Liberalism

in the Irish Republic," in C. Coulter and S. Coleman, eds., The End of Irish History: Critical Reflections on the Celtic Tiger, (New York: Manchester

University Press,2003), 56-73, 63

33. Ibid.

34. Holloway, John, "Capital, Crisis and the State," Capital & Class no. 2 (1977): 76-101, 93

35. White Paper on a Framework for Supporting Voluntary Activity and for Developing the Relationship between the State and the Community and Voluntary sector, Section 2.37

36. Wohlforth, Tim, Black Nationalism & Marxist Theory, (New York: Labor Publications, 1970), 33