Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This whole discussion about social democracy and marxist economics disturbs me (disgusts me?) on two levels. First, on the practical level, if it weren't for SD I would never have had the chance to arrive above the level of the working class. My grand parents were miners, my parents were able to become school teachers, and I and my wife could become professionals --all on the basis of social democratic party politics. ( My grandparents and parents were both active in labour/social democratic politcal parties politics.) so the kind of sh.. that we get from the rigid marxists is not something I have much respect for. My grandparents and parents were deeply involved with the Winnipeg General Strike and the basic strikes and social strugles for human, racial and political rights during the 1930s through the 1960s so this kind of academic shit I don't want to hear about. I have done research in Sweden, Britain, Yugoslavia, Australia, and eastern Europe (and published in "acceptable" academic (including Marxist economic journals such as Monthly Review and Canadian Dimension.) The level of discussion of soci al democratic economics on this list is appalling. I would not accept it as acceptable at a second year university level. If we are so ignorant of social democratic theory and practice we would be better off not to advertise the fact. The same should be said of institutional theory from Berles and Meanes, Galbraith, Darity and all the other institutionalists. Pen-L should not parade its ignorance of alternative economic paradigms. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >Another Swedish question. Doesn't Sweden have one of the most > >concentrated industrial structures in the world? > > Yup, think it does. The Wallenberg family's Investor trust controls > some enormous portion of Swedish industry. Such structures are good > for social democracy; dispersed stockowner structures like the U.S.'s > are its enemy. > > Doug >
