Max Sawicky: >Under the doctrine of inevitability (DOI) >that some here seem to imply, if I have >understood you at least partially, there >must therefore be some reason(s) why such a >policy would have to be rejected. I do >not attach pejorative implications to >a DOI, incidentally. If that's what >you've got, now is a good time to motivate >it. Your Krugman attachment did not make it through, but since I am fairly familiar with his ideas I would assume that it is some variation on basic Keynsian doctrine. The basic problem is that Keynsianism does not work. What got the US out of a depression was WWII, not pump-priming. We can not have another war. It would rapidly turn atomic and lead to the end of civilization. Furthermore, while Marxists don't get involved with Keynsian nostrums, they do make proposals for ending an economic slump. For example, during the depression Trotskyists argued for 40 hours pay for 30 hours work. The idea was to reduce unemployment. If the bosses complained that they couldn't afford it, then a related demand would be to open the books. All of these demands are contained in Trotsky's Transitional Program, which was very much oriented to the Great Depression. Unfortunately his followers never understood that this program was not universal and turned into something like the followers of Daniel DeLeon who propose a version of industrial union based socialism virtually identical to the one that DeLeon formulated in the late 1800s. Even if you don't propose radical demands like these that pose the question of who rules society, Marxists will always support reforms that strengthen the position and confidence of the working class, such as a minimum wage, social security and unemployment insurance. > >There is clearly a narrow interest in >deflationism, by and large, but it is not >obvious to me why such an interest must >assert itself in the face of increasingly >obvious threats to social stability. Marxists do not have an "interest" in deflation. All we have an interest in is organizing the working-class and its allies so as to eliminate the crisis-ridden system of capitalism. > >For PK, it is merely a matter of hidebound >"ideology." I would think that any Marxist >doctrine of inevitability would offer more >compelling factors which would certainly >foster ideological rationales but more >important, convey some bundle of economic >and/or financial imperatives to the guys >in charge. No, this is not correct. Economic and financial imperatives are the concerns of politicians and economists who are trying to reform capitalism. As I pointed out already, history teaches us that such policies are doomed to failure. That is why the world is so dangerous today. The "beggar my neighbor" financial policies can rapidly mutate into the sort of violence that tore apart Yugoslavia, but much worse. >I expect >manufacturers will start howling for the >Fed to ease, as they have in past episodes. >The question is still, why shouldn't we >expect this and end up looking back on >this as we currently do at the '87 glitch. The business press makes it clear why this won't work. There is enormous overcapacity everywhere. Capitalism does not have any notion of what to do when it builds excess capacity except to lay off workers at best, or go to war at worst. We must fight against either eventuality. Louis Proyect (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
