Re: GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM

On Fri, 4 Jan 1980, Paul Riesz wrote:

>it is useless to try convincing cofirmed socialists, with logical
>arguments.

We know for sure you are not a socialist, then, eh? We appreciate your
thoughtful, measured comments, and especially for remaining so very
open-minded, Paul.

>1. Defining Capitalism as genocide, slavery, racism and state
>oppression: Such atrocities have happened long before capitalism came
>into being

And those systems should be condemned. Just because other historical
systems have been brutal does not excuse the brutality of capitalism. This
is like justifying killing your neighbor because Cain killed Abel. 

>have certainly also happened in countries professing to be Marxist;

So?

>remember the Gulags or the killing of a quarter of their fellow citizens by
>the Khmer Rouge! 

(Ah, yes, the gulags and Cambodia.) How does this excuse the brutalities
of capitalism? Is it not a tiny dot odd for an anti-socialist to justify
capitalist brutality by appealing to "communist" brutality?

>They happen when the wrong people come into power and cannot be easily
>removed

How are the capitalist class - the ruling class - to be removed, Paul?
Where is the election I can participate in that will allow me to chose the
people who will determine how the society is run? Tell me where there is a
capitalist country in the world - anywhere in history - where the people
have the power to elect the leaders of corporations and banks.

>2. Keynesianism is equivalent to the total state control of the economy
>during war: Wrong: Keynesianism implies only partial government
>intervention; more during recessions and very little in boom times.

Isn't this the problem? A democratic government should have complete
control over the economy. More precisely, the economy should be
democratized. The problem is that Keynesian intervention is meant to secure
and extend the capitalist system, strengthen capital over against the
productive members of society and those who are relegated to unproductive
impoverished social strata, and therefore it will only interfere to these
ends.

>3: Keynesian economic promotions must be used to produce armaments:
>Wrong; there is no reason why they cannot be used to build needed
>infrastructure, affordable housing for the poor or to clean up polluted
>beaches.

You are right. There isn't. Who says otherwise?

>4. Keynesinism is counterproductive, since it is only propping up
>Capitalism momentarily and postponing the final, necessarily Socialist
>solutions.

This isn't my position. Socialism is not inevitable, just highly
desirable.

>or any other "ism" but not true Socialism. But is it not strange, that NONE
>of the many attempt to put the ideas of Karl Marx into practice did achieve
>success?

The socialist states were successful by many standards. Capitalism is
successful by many standards (just ask the people with the money). Depends
on how one defines success, doesn't it? (You haven't done this.) Turns out
that a successful capitalism is quite brutal for most people. Socialism,
in contrast, represented a tremendous advance in living conditions for
most of those who lived in the capitalist periphery. The passing of
socialism has left their collective life in a pathetic state.

>My final conclusion: The success of any systems depends on the quality of
>the men or women who make the decisions and the biggest problem is how to
>choose them.

So you advance a "great man" theory of history, then? Contrary to your
position, people are determined by the social system. Fair systems produce
fair people. Capitalism therefore cannot provide quality leaders.

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN