mat wrote: >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.
Mat, (1) what happens if govt deficits in the pursuit of full employment have arresting effects on private investments; could this happen? why or why not? (2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer nations? is this possible? do you support deficit financing by the US govt to create jobs at all times? can it ever be counter productive in effect both on a national and global scale? > >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. This is not the problem that Mattick and presumably Shaikh are getting at, right? >So there needs to be the short term reforms that make a difference >immediately and the long term solutions as well. Will the reforms reform? Could the reforms not only not stop but also exacerbate a retrenchment in private investment that the Keynesians want to leave in private hands?Will the reforms push problems elsewhere? What is Shaikh saying here? > 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! Again the reasoning behind your conclusion matters. > >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. My impression is that a so called orthodox marxist thinks that reform policy softens the blow of short term problems only to exacerbate the problems in the long term. That is, through fictitious capital the state contracts obligations that in the future will require further state encroachments on profitability at the very time that it already may already not be strong to sustain private investment. So that surplus value is sufficient for both private profitability and state taxation to meet past obligations, the recovery in profitability then has to be that much stronger, which will require an even more massive devaluation of capital and an even higher rate of exploitation than would have otherwise been needed for the restoration of the profit rate for private accumulation alone. Moreover, all this has to be endured without the state casting a safety net that would require more taxation and thus more encroachment on profitability. Keynesianism thus creates the conditions for an even bigger blow out. The contradictions of capitalism can only be deferred and thereby accentuated, not overcome. There should be no illusion otherwise. > 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. That would be great. Thanks. Mario Cogoy? David Yaffe? Sydney Coontz? Geoffrey Pilling? Rakesh
