> Krugman is not "left-liberal". He is a neo-liberal, appearing in > sharp distinction to the hard-core right-wingers that dominate public > policy presently. His critical inquiry is pretty shallow, consisting > mostly of currently calling Bush and his gang on their blatant > falsehoods. When Clintonomics was ruling, he put out drivel about the > "Self-Organizing Economy". Your ideas about criticizing Krugman to > "bring them over to our side", whatever "our side" may be, is utter > nonsense. Krugman isn't going to change his mind about his version of > neoliberalism any more than Bush is.
If if you say so, it must be true, and if I am wrong, I am wrong. But I am not too worried about my error in this specific area. My experience of conventional economists is that they look at the world from an economic point of view, a sort of economism. Socialists economists don't, socialists don't, because we think that there is more to it than the question of whether Mr Moneybags can sell his last ten tons of coal, or whether the rich are getting richer. Our dispute goes deeper because it raises questions about the efficacy of markets and privatisation, about economic health and the quality of human life, hence the economic question can never be separated from the social question. But suppose you are correct, fact is that Krugman has a lot better grip on the data, and out-argues the neo-conservatives. Therefore by taking Krugman seriously rather than dismissing him as a Clintonite ratbag, you both create a space for controversy and learn something new. That's how Jim Devine does it. I never said you had to agree with Krugman, but with Krugman, you get a better idea of where the debate is really at, instead of fundamentalist garbage. Suppose that Krugman raises the idea of a "self-organising economy", then this raises a marvellous opportunity for socialists to make points about the realities of the market and about socialist self-management by the working class. You could of course philosophise about "ideological hegemony" and a "war of position" in the manner of Ernesto Laclau, or reflect on the Antimonies of American Marxism in the manner of Perry Anderson, but you could also step into the real controversy. The Left often moans about Stalinist practices, but old habits die hard and they keep on slagging off at individuals and engaging in character assassinations anyhow, that's all I am saying. I don't deny that workingclass people swear, I am just saying that if this substitutes for political argument, we are better off sticking our missives into the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. You suggest a priori that it is never possible to convince Krugman of anything, so you have lost the argument already before anybody has said anything. J.
