Re: GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM

Paul,

I suppose it does depend on how one defines capitalism and socialism. But
then reality must also be reckoned (are definitions entirely arbitrary?).
Should we define capitalism in an idealized, ideological fashion -- as
free markets and free individuals -- or should we abstract capitalism from
concrete reality -- as a mode of production that converts surplus-value
into profits and accumulates capital? Taking a realist perspective,
capitalism has never been the capitalism of market ideology. Capitalism
has been about genocide, slavery, racism, state oppression, etc. The state
regulates the market whether by making the circuit of capital when the
market cannot or by structuring the law to benefit capital over against
workers. Since capitalism has never been laissez faire capitalism,
concrete capitalist regimes pursuing some degree of a keynesian course are
not deviations from capitalism but rather historically concrete
articulations of generalized commodity production.

One ideological definition of socialism is one in which a central state
dictates the economic behavior of a society. I do not understand how this
definition uniquely defines a socialist mode of production, however. Are
there not other modes of production wherein a central state dictates the
economic behavior of a society? Socialism, by definition, and because of
this many people say socialism has not existed, is production oriented
towards the social needs of the people rather than the interests of
particular classes. Surpluses that are produced do not accumulate in the
hands of private individuals, but are redistributed to meet the needs of
families. Some include in this definition some measure of democratic
control over this process (democratic socialism). Some allow for a
transitional condition where the state acts as a proxy for the people
(state socialism). In any case, the logic is different than it is under
capitalism. (Others will admit to the existence of production geared
towards needs but say socialism does not or did not exist for analytical
reasons.) Dialectically, the character of measures assumed under the logic
of a mode of production are determined by the social totality not by their
superficial resemblances to features of other modes of production,
concrete, theoretical, or otherwise (e.g. chattel slavery under capitalism
is capitalist exploitation).

What might be more accurate is to describe capitalism as oscillating
between competitive and monopoly poles. This is much better than supposing
that the capitalist mode of production oscillates between capitalist and
socialist poles, with keynesian schemes occupying some middle ground or
third way. Towards the monopoly pole positive state behavior predominates,
towards the competitive pole negative state behavior predominates. Thus
some have also described keynesianism as state capitalism to get at the
degree of positive state intervention in the circuit of capital. I think
this term is useful because it described how the state steps in and,
through various mechanisms, such as holding the line on degree of
inequality (it really does not reverse inequality, only slows the degree
of its growth, which may benefit workers in the short-term), preserves and
extends capitalism. However, in the end, socialism is something that is
not capitalism, even while it retains features of capitalism because it
may emerge from a capitalist context. The logic of the keynesian regime is
not therefore a socialistic one, since production remains foremost the
accumulation of capital in the hands of a small class of owners and
controllers who exploit workers and peasants and slaves.

>Why cant you accept the fact that Keynesianism tries to combine the best
>features of both systems and to avoid their greatest pitfalls?

I do not understand how socialism's pitfalls can be avoided by instituting
capitalism. Socialism's pitfalls require socialist solutions, just as
capitalism's pitfalls require capitalist solutions. Really, it is to
mangle our language to suggest that capitalists seek socialist solutions.
Such a point assumes a lot, and the fallacy of the golden mean is even
more fallacious here in its attempted application to a non-existence
continuum (which is not to suggest that continuums are completely useless
analytical devices).

>Many people probably agree, that on principle, Keynesianism could solve
>many of our Society's gravest problems

I think that keynesianism under certain circumstances solves a great many
problems capitalists face. But reconstructing society along socialist
lines would solve the gravest problems of humankind, such as the coming
ecological holocaust, which keynesianism only makes worse by raising the
level of consumption, and the fact of labor exploitation, which, under
conditions of limited democracy, keynesianism secures by strengthening the
state over against labor. It is also true, however, that state
intervention under more democratic conditions can improve the lot of poor
people even while capitalism is in force, which is why I support social
welfare measures that have been associated with keynesian regimes. But
here the question is not how much state there is but rather what the state
is doing, and, moreover, with the full recognition that we are not "moving
in a socialist direction," but rather working within a capitalist
framework.
 
I support social welfare measures not out of a desire to patch capitalism
up but to help the worst off among us. I do not believe people should be
impoverished under any circumstances. I do not desire that capitalism be
the mode of production under which we live, therefore any reformist
desires I express exist within a larger desire that any system based on
narrow class desires be replaced by a democratic system based on broad
social needs. I think this is what Amin was getting at, incidentally. I
don't think he was supporting global keynesianism in itself, but for its
potential to open up the system to evolutionary transformation. I am
skeptical that global keynesianism would have this effect, and while it
may be radical within the narrow parameters of capitalist ideology, I do
not believe it is a radical notion in a broader conception of possible
social orders. But there is a big difference between reforming capitalism
to save capitalism in the long-run, and reforming capitalism to save
people in short-run and working to eliminate capitalism in the long-run
(although I do not believe we have a long-run under capitalism).

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN