Natasha: If the world economy is heading to a period of deflation, then I'm not convinced that the sort of spend that Brown has promised will be sufficient.
Karl: I cannot subscribe to your argument. Even if Brown were to increase state spending by a putative "sufficient amount" it would not necessarily led to real economic growth. The accelerated accumulation of capital is not a function of state spending. Indeed in principle state spending constitutes a deduction from surplus value which means that less surplus value exists for capital expansion. Consequently the rate of capital accumulation correspondingly declines. Keynesian economics has been proven by economic development to be incorrect which is, in part, why it has been abandoned by the bourgeoisie. To describe Brown as some sort of Keynesian makes no sense given the track record of what is called New Labour. The recent state spending promises dont necessarily have anything to do with adherence to Keynesian philosophy. New Labour is far too pragmatic for such crusading. The spending by Brown, in many ways, has more to do with politics than economics: The spending has more to with New Labour's political defence. It is aimed at undermining any growing left opposition within the Labour Party and the trade union movement. It is also forms part of a political strategy to win the next general election. Ultimately the modest state spending programme is a device to maintain the British working class in a state of passivity. Neo-Keynesianism is merely a modification of bourgeois ideology designed to, among other things, protect a "discipline" that has proven its bankrupcy concerning its ability to explain and assist in the development of the capitalist economy. History has verified the falseness of both Keynesianism and Monetarism. They have been reduced to a quieter role because of the glaring contradictions, as theories and forms of analyses, against the backdrop of economic reality. Karl Carlile Communism Site: http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
