>Ken Hanly wrote:
>>
>>
>> Politics beyond any type of reformism is necessary for the working class
>> to bring about socialism. On the other hand surely it is necessary to fight
>> back against attempts to savage social democratic reforms rather than do as
>> social democratic parties in
Ken Hanly wrote:
>
>
> Politics beyond any type of reformism is necessary for the working class
> to bring about socialism. On the other hand surely it is necessary to fight
> back against attempts to savage social democratic reforms rather than do as
> social democratic parties in Germany
While those accomplishments may not hold when conditions change they
nevertheless are accomplishments. I thought that was part of Paul's
message. They were also accomplishments achieved after great struggles. Of
course every step of the way powerful forces sought to limit changes and
integrate th
ield
Perth Australia
--- Message Received ---
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:54:02 -0600
Subject: [PEN-L:21531] Re: social democracy
>Rakesh:
>Grossmann did not oppose parliamentary work or reforms. He argued
>that the latter could not hold and that the state could not steer the
>economy. He as trying to revolutionize the practice of German
>communists in 1929. Seems prescient to me.
>
>^
>
>CB: Rakesh , you are known h
Date sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:08:44 -0800
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:21540] Re: social democracy
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>By the way, Michael Yates
I think that were talking about two different threads. This discussion began
with the idea that social democracy might be good for capitalists.
The appropriate tactic for socialists is a different question. Many
revolutionaries did not oppose New Deal reforms because they represented an
impedim
Other than the personal reference to Paul, I think that most of us would
accept this statement.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
> Paul Phillips is wrong to think that this critique pooh poohed the
> accomplishments of the social democrats; it was a warning that those
> accomplishments could not hold an
We have a hard time making generalizations like this, because capitalism has not
faced many crises. How many would your count in the 20th century? I assume
that were not talking about recessions.
"Devine, James" wrote:
> In a recent message, Rakesh wrote that "did you respond to the well known
This change does not occur in the price of new capital goods, but in a
devaluation of existing capital goods.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> in a deep downturn,
> doesn't constant capital cheapen relative to consumer goods?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL
>In a recent message, Rakesh wrote that "did you respond to the well known
>empirical observation that crises are most often not overcome as a result of
>stronger consumption and prices?" (which he associates with "social
>democracy")
>
>I doubt that that's a well-known empirical observation,
thi
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:21531] Re: social democracy
>
>
&
>Date sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:20:27 -0500
>To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:21525] social democracy
>Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Doug,
>
>My response was not to your post b
Date sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 10:20:27 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:21525] social democracy
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doug,
My response was not to your post but t
> Grossman was ignored; he has never really been studied by American Marxists
Oh, the other reason is that once Horkheimer brought the Frankfurt
School to the US, he failed to support Grossman's strictly Marxian
research; he refused to publish his mss on dynamics *Capital*--which
has only app
>Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>How radical indeed are these anti globalization activists!
>
>And how much like a conservative a lot of Marxists can seem, whether
>it's Finance Minister Hilferding defending tight budgets and sound
>money or graduate students explaining why social democracy only
>ma
http://google.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=hilferding+against+the+current&hc=0&hs=0
>--- Original Message ---
>From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 1/17/02 7:20:27 AM
>
>Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>>How radical indeed are these anti globalization activists!
>
>And how muc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re:
>social democracy
>Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>This whole discussion about social democracy and marxist
>
Title: Re: [PEN-L:21509] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- Original Message -
From:
Rakesh
Bhandari
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 8:36
PM
Subject: [PEN-L:21512] Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social
I am sorry if i missed Paul's attack. I lost about a week of e-mail when
our system crashed at CSU. I only looked at some posts on the archives.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
> .
>
> As I said, Phillips laid into me first. So, Michael, you have to ask
> yourself why you said something to me. I said n
Title: Re: [PEN-L:21509] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re:
===
Disputing and discussing ideas and strategies is one thing
but you *still* aren't winning friends and influencing
people.
ian, isn't it a bit pretentious for you to think that you know
what every-one who reads this lis
>Debating and learning are at the core of what we are trying to do.
>Personal attacks get in the way.
As I said, Phillips laid into me first. So, Michael, you have to ask
yourself why you said something to me. I said nothing to him. I don't
even know who he is.
rb
Debating and learning are at the core of what we are trying to do.
Personal attacks get in the way.
>
> No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall continue to
> respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share
> information as if I am an information processing machine
- Original Message -
From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No thanks, Kick me off the list anytime you want. I shall
continue to
respond in the style that I respond. I am not here to share
information as if I am an information processing machine
but to
discuss and debate and learn
As everybody else on the list know, I am not joking. Why is it Jim,
Carrol, and, you add, Paul get into arguments with you? I think that
abrasiveness detracts from the exchanges. Give us your information, but
spare us your disputatious approach.
Thanks.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:28:04PM -080
2002 19:06:39 -0500
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >From:Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re:
> >social democracy
> >Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500
>To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re:
>social democracy
>Send reply to: [EMAIL
Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: social democracy
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This
According to a 1998 NBER paper by Morck, the Wallenberg family controls
corporate assets equal to 40% of the market value of all corporations on
the Swedish stock exchange.
Statistics Canada tells us that 25 enterprises in Canada control 41% of all
corporate assets in the country.
Ownership c
Michael Perelman wrote:
>Another Swedish question. Doesn't Sweden have one of the most
>concentrated industrial structures in the world?
Yup, think it does. The Wallenberg family's Investor trust controls
some enormous portion of Swedish industry. Such structures are good
for social democracy
Another Swedish question. Doesn't Sweden have one of the most
concentrated industrial structures in the world?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 04:20:44PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Devine, James wrote:
>
> >Also, I don't think anyone claimed that social democracy abolished the
> >exploitation of labo
Devine, James wrote:
>Also, I don't think anyone claimed that social democracy abolished the
>exploitation of labor or even reduced its degree. (I understand that
>businesses under Swedish social democracy did rather well in terms of
>profits, or at least that the big ones did. Doug would probabl
> >The class struggle cannot now
> >force upon the capitalist class a social democratic regime that
> >neutralizes the growth in the rate of exploitation and allows for
> >the run up of public debt for the purposes of full employment. Such
> >a social democratic regime would not only not weake
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>>I agree with Jim. SD began in Sweden, for example, after a general
>>strike. After a while, business forgot its origins and only saw its
>>inconvenient side.
>
>I agree with neither Jim nor Michael. The class struggle cannot now
>force upon the capitalist class a socia
>I agree with Jim. SD began in Sweden, for example, after a general
>strike. After a while, business forgot its origins and only saw its
>inconvenient side.
I agree with neither Jim nor Michael. The class struggle cannot now
force upon the capitalist class a social democratic regime that
neut
I agree with Jim. SD began in Sweden, for example, after a general
strike. After a while, business forgot its origins and only saw its
inconvenient side.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:26:51PM -0800, Devine, James wrote:
> [was: RE: [PEN-L:21410] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: the
In a message dated 12/19/1998 5:43:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< It's certainly the case that worker-managed firms don't lay off their
members in downturns (very much). But--at least the last time I talked to
Laura Tyson about this--she did say that it really seemed
In a message dated 12/18/1998 9:26:27 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< On the plus side we have a somewhat smaller set of countries spending a
generation or two under the rule of Communist regimes of varying
quality--from Pol Pot or Mao or Kim Il Sung at the bottom end to
Well, a few more comments on this business.
One is to note that for worker-owned and managed coops
the review by Bonin, Jones, and Putterman in the JEL in
1993 makes it pretty clear that such firms are more
efficient in production than traditional firms, the major
reason being the el
--=_312582744==_.ALT
At 07:06 PM 12/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>But Brad de Long (the resident Big Name neoclassical) pursues a strategy
>>that defeats my efforts here. Instead of addressing my response to his
>>abstract wish that social democracy would prevail (despite the US/I
Isn't this (nearly) a non-issue? If there are no barriers to entry, why
would the reluctance of existing worker-owned firms to expand matter?
Isn't this point fairly well established by now? (Granted, in an
economy of worker-owned enterprises there would be an enhanced role for
public entrepren
Jim Devine wrote:
>I would add that worker-owned firms don't require an external reserve army
>of labor in order to motivate people to work under conditions of workplace
>authoritarianism, the way capitalist firms do.
No, but they have an incentive not to hire, to avoid diluting profits,
don't t
Brad,
Well, I've already granted that Scandinavian social
democracies were more liberal democratic than Tito's
Yugoslavia, which was a one-party state after all.
However, despite Tito's despotism, it was clearly the most
politically and civilly liberal of any of the "communist"
states.
I would add that worker-owned firms don't require an external reserve army
of labor in order to motivate people to work under conditions of workplace
authoritarianism, the way capitalist firms do.
Barkley writes:
> This story about worker-managed firms not hiring is at
>least partly one of
It's certainly the case that worker-managed firms don't lay off their
members in downturns (very much). But--at least the last time I talked to
Laura Tyson about this--she did say that it really seemed true that
worker-managed firms had a very difficult time expanding in response to
increased dema
> . . .
> There is the problem that successful worker-managed firms tend to want to
> not hire new workers . . .
This is well-taken, but you have to admit that on the
scale of grand systemic problems, it does not rank too
high. The state can essay macro and micro remedies
for this. We're a lo
>But Brad de Long (the resident Big Name neoclassical) pursues a strategy
>that defeats my efforts here. Instead of addressing my response to his
>abstract wish that social democracy would prevail (despite the US/IMF/World
>Bank/Rudiger Dornbusch/Paul Krugman jihad against populism, which
>undermi
Brad,
OK, for the umpteenth time I am going to point
something out to you to which you have never responded.
What about Slovenia and worker-managed market
socialism? Taking a look at where it started from in 1945,
the record is pretty good and although not as liberal of a
democracy
>Brad,
> OK, for the umpteenth time I am going to point
>something out to you to which you have never responded.
> What about Slovenia and worker-managed market
>socialism? Taking a look at where it started from in 1945,
>the record is pretty good and although not as liberal of a
>democra
At 08:12 AM 12/18/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote:
>But Brad de Long (the resident Big Name neoclassical) pursues a strategy
>that defeats my efforts here. Instead of addressing my response to his
>abstract wish that social democracy would prevail (despite the US/IMF/World
>Bank/Rudiger Dornbusch/Paul
At 07:46 AM 12/18/98 -0800, you wrote:
>thanks. Too bad it fell on Brad's deaf ears.
>
Well, Brad acts pretty much like one of those arrogant ivory tower
intellectuals populating this and other countries' academic institutions --
they are just incapable of critical reasoning. All they can do is
At 10:10 AM 12/18/98 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote:
>What amazes me is that somebody with De Long's impressive credentials has
>such an insouciant attitude about how he comes across, which is a blend of
>an undergraduate smart-alec and a libertarian troll. I guess he feels that
>if his arguments don'
On Fri, December 18, 1998 at 08:37:24 (-0800) michael writes:
>Why shouldn't Hiroshima be a war crime? Because it was supposed to scare the
>Soviets? After all, the U.S. knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender.
...I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I
Brad De Long wrote:
>I think Truman made a lot of big mistakes (Hiroshima among them), but did a
>lot more things right.
Mistake? Killing a couple of hundred thousand people to send the Soviets a
message was just an itsy-bitsy error? Can that kind of reasoning get you a
Harvard PhD?
Doug
At 02:24 PM 12/17/98 -0800, Brad de Long wrote:
>We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or
>"social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that
>produced the fastest generation of economic growth that the world has ever
>seen." The alternatives--wheth
On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Brad De Long wrote:
> Whether U.S. post-WWII foreign policy was--broadly speaking--a good (or at
> least a not-so-bad) idea depends on whether the plus side outweighs the
> minus side. And so you cannot say that the quality of life in South Korea
> relative to North Korea is
Good post on social democracy, Jim
-Paul Meyer
Whether or not Truman was acting as a pawn of the aircraft industry it is
fairly
clear that Truman misinterpreted Soviet intentions in Korea. Indeed, the
entire conception of the Cold War affected by "Last War Syndrome", the
tendency
for American policy makers to see the world through the lens of
Why shouldn't Hiroshima be a war crime? Because it was supposed to scare the
Soviets? After all, the U.S. knew that the Japanese were trying to surrender.
Brad De Long wrote:
> I said that Hiroshima was a big mistake.
>
> I don't *think* it should be classified as a war crime (although perhaps
Brad writes:
>feeling that we today owe a pretty big debt to Harry S Truman...
Mccarthysim? NSC 68 and it's legacy? Nope; I don't buy it.
Tom Kruse
Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia
Tel/Fax: (591-4) 248242
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brad de Long writes: >I think Truman made a lot of big mistakes (Hiroshima
among them), but did a
lot more things right.<
and of course Stalin made a lot of mistakes too. To bring in the word
"mistake" when talking about monsters is the usual apologist's gambit
But wait, why am I wasting my
>Brad De Long wrote:
>
>>I think Truman made a lot of big mistakes (Hiroshima among them), but did a
>>lot more things right.
>
>Mistake? Killing a couple of hundred thousand people to send the Soviets a
>message was just an itsy-bitsy error? Can that kind of reasoning get you a
>Harvard PhD?
>
>D
thanks. Too bad it fell on Brad's deaf ears.
At 09:05 AM 12/18/98 EST, you wrote:
>Good post on social democracy, Jim
>-Paul Meyer
>
>
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
>Whether or not Truman was acting as a pawn of the aircraft industry it is
>fairly
>clear that Truman misinterpreted Soviet intentions in Korea. Indeed, the
>entire conception of the Cold War affected by "Last War Syndrome", the
>tendency
>for American policy makers to see the world through the le
On Thu, December 17, 1998 at 20:21:33 (-0800) Brad De Long writes:
>...
>I think Truman made a lot of big mistakes (Hiroshima among them), but did a
>lot more things right.
>
>It's hard to visit Seoul and then the DMZ (I've never been to Pyongyang),
>or Taipei and then Beijing, or Berlin and then
>
>Brad, who is this "we"? You and Truman? Harry S Truman (to whom "his"
>referred in my sentence) was no social democrat! He was a right-wing member
>of the New Deal coalition (which makes him sort of left wing by today's
>standards). I'm surprised that you want to put yourself in the same league
On Thu, December 17, 1998 at 14:24:29 (-0800) Brad De Long writes:
>>
>>And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the
>>development of capitalism.
>>
>
>We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or
>"social-market economy," or the "political-economic
I wrote:
>>And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the
>>development of capitalism.
Brad writes:
>We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or
>"social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that
>produced the fastest generation
>
>And his definition of economic development was clearly that of the
>development of capitalism.
>
We prefer to talk about the "mixed economy," or "social democracy," or
"social-market economy," or the "political-economic arrangements that
produced the fastest generation of economic growth that
i have tried to follow your unsubscribe
instructions and i am still on it
please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why does a choice have to be made between private capitalist--or
even private cooperative--ownership on the one hand and state
ownership on the other? This is
to presuppose that property is one thing and must be vested
whole and entire in one kind of social actor or another. But
*social* o
71 matches
Mail list logo
