I support anything that I think will make the lives of working people and the poor (and the working poor!) better than it is now, including deficit financed job creation, government spending on various social programs, living wage, etc. I don't believe that these things can end the business cycle or eliminate the contradictions of capitalism. But I think that until we can formulate and implement a better system, it is better to have guaranteed jobs, etc.
Of course, there can be a problem that we spend all our time supporting the safety net instead of throwing over capitalism. But there can equally be the problem that we spend all the time thinking about throwing over capitalism instead of making sure there is a safety net. So there needs to be the short term reforms that make a difference immediately and the long term solutions as well. There will be some division of labor--some will concentrate only on one or the other. Some will do both. Both projects are important. I can't think of anyone on this list that believes Keynesian demand management can eliminate the contradictions of capitalism. I don't believe traditional Keynesian demand management can even achieve true full employment! I think that it is important to read and study people like Mattick. I consider Anwar Shaikh to be of a similar persuasion, and he had and continues to have a huge influence on my own views. As Shaikh has put it, we need to identify the limits of policy intervention in capitalism so we can get an idea of what is possible. There are limits, though they are not absolutely definite. There is a range within which there is some ability to affect change. I wish I had Shaikh's syllabus handy, because there were some other really good authors we read besides Mattick on these issues and I can't remember who they are. But I will try to find the cites. They are well-worth reading, studying, and discussing. Mat -----Original Message----- From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:21551] reform and rev Rakesh: the discussion here is not of social democratic economics but the root causes of capitalist crises and whether Keynesian demand management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist system. ^^^^^^^ CB: So, who on this list or thread has claimed that "Keynesian demand management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist system " ? Perhaps it was the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz who said it . Do you have a reform program, Rakesh , or is it revolution or nothing for you ? ^^^^^^^ Rakesh: no, it is not. some crises can arise from a disproportionality between Depts I and II that can be overcome fairly painlessly by a redistribution of capital and value--the whole accumulation process is always shot through with one kind of disproportionality or another; other crises--usually general and protracted ones-- originate from insufficient surplus value in the process of production that require much more painful organizational changes in the abode of production, viz. a devaluation of constant capital and a rise in the rate of surplus value. ^^^^^^^^ CB: Are you advocating that in general and protracted crises, Marxists support painful organizational changes in the abode of production, namely, those measures that will cause a devaluation of constant capital and a rise in the rate of surplus value ? Or are you saying that the capitalists will just take these steps to accomplish this anyway ? What is the practical, programmatic , activist significance of your theory of how to obtain temporary relief from general and protracted crises ? ^^^^^^^ CB: Are you including Victor Perlo and P.I. Nikitin among orthodox >marxists ? You aren't claiming that they and other orthodox Marxists >claim that Keynesian measures will end the business cycle , are you ? Rakesh: I am not including nor excluding Perlo, though my sense is that along side his often tremendoulsy helfpul presentations of data (including on the continuing problems of racism) he was commited to an underconsumption theory which makes it difficult to see why and how Keynesian demand management cannot succeed in the long run. Which is not to say that he believed that it would not fail. But I don't have Superprofits and Crises with me. So do elaborate on Perlo's contributions. ^^^^^^^ CB: Maybe I'll bring here later more fully Perlo and Nikitin's, et al.'s, looks at the capitalist business cycle causes. I can say now that the general approach is based on the contradictions in the anarchy of capitalist production, and that Perlo emphatically holds that capitalism cannot be reformed or it business cycle eradicated by Keynesian policies. What is your reasoning that an underconsumptionist theory of business cycle makes it difficult to see how Keynesian demand management cannot succeed in the long run ? What specifically in underconsumptionist theory implies capitalism can be permenantly reformed, and business cycle crises ended forever ? Did even Keynes claim that ?
