Thanks Rob. I take your point. Keynes seems to criticize some things too. but somehow, neither of them to lead us to overthrowing the system. I wonder if there is a further twist from sarcasm to irony in the love/hate relationship between liberals and capitalism. Are you saying Galbraith is a critic of capitalism ? Sort of like that other Yank, FD Roosevelt was ? Aren' they trying to save capitalism ? Let me take your point, and ask further, isn't this reformist critique, critique with the idea of saving the system , rather than radical critique to change it fundamentally ? Thus, ultimately Galbraith justifies the system fundamentally, by proposing correction that will make the system ok ? Take the passage below. I guess the sarcasm is lost on me. Could you explain to me how this is a criticism of capitalism and society on the same level as Mao Tse-tung's ? This thread ( or is that the other list?) has been on the lack of critical thinking in Maoism, implying that western liberals are more critical thinkers. My thought would be that Mao thinks more critically about capitalism than Galbraith ; and that Galbraith, in typcial liberal style, has a sort of split personality: "critic" yet apologist. Charles Brown >>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/09/99 01:17PM >>> G'day Chas, I'm exercising some uncharacteristic good judgement and staying out of this debate, and I'm sure the day will come when I agree unreservedly with a Charles Brown post - mebbe tomorrow ... You write: >And overall, Maoism is a profound criticism of all existing society, much more substantive criticism in thinking and action, than that of the bourgeois liberal intellectuals in general and in particular those here "criticizing" Maoism's alleged lack of critical thinking. Bourgeois liberal intellectuals are involved in apolegetics not criticism of capitalism. For example, calling capitalism "the affluent society" is an apolegetic, not critical, theme. Ever heard of sarcasm, Chas? Galbraith's *The Affluent Society* is a brilliant and timeless book, for mine - and he begins it thusly: 'Beyond doubt, wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding. The poor man has always a precise view of his problem: he hasn't enough and he needs more. The rich man can assume or imagine a much greater variety of ills and he will be correspondingly less certain of their remedy ... As with individuals so with nations.' And it justs keeps getting better after that. Hardly an apologetic, Chas! I'm for my bed. G'Night, Rob.
