It's all very well to "connect the crisis to the underlying capitalist system." The proof, though, comes in whether one presents a program for BOTH responding to the current crisis within the constraints posed by that system while at the same time moving beyond those very constraints. That is the difference between calling for a program of work-time reduction and wool-gathering about the need to replace the system.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sandwichman wrote: >> >> In advance I will christen the first phase of the Obama >> administration's economic policy as "the phony war." It will pursue a >> moderate, conventional path of "economic stimulus" and it will fail. >> Not only is the recession "not over yet," it has hardly begun. >> >> On the heels of year-after-year-after-year of government deficits, one >> more "stimulus package" will be like pushing on a string. Unemployment >> will continue a relentless upward creep. The only way to stop it will >> be through direct measures, not roundabout fiscal ones. That means >> either a huge public works program or "work-sharing". >> > > http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/wolff061108.html > Policies to "Avoid" Economic Crises > by Rick Wolff > > Conservatives and liberals share more than a careful avoidance of connecting > the crisis to the underlying capitalist system. They are also complicit in > blocking those who do argue for that connection from making their case in > politics, the media, or the schools. While conservative and liberal > policies do little to solve crises, the debate between them has largely > succeeded in excluding anti-capitalist analyses of economic crises from > public discussion. Perhaps that exclusion -- rather than solving crises -- > is the function of those endlessly rehashed policy debates between liberals > and conservatives. -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
