Re: GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM

My 2c worth on this debate.

On Fri, 4 Jan 1980, Paul Riesz wrote:

|1. My rejection of your definition of capitalism as as genocide, slavery,
|racism and state oppression and my showing that such brutalities have
|occurred and do occur under many different systems cannot be interpreted as
|a justification of such "atrocities" if they happen under capitalism.

Definition is different from characterization. Capitalism can be defined as
the appropriation of surplus labor of others on the basis of the legally
codified and state-protected practice called "private property," and its
several-centuries long history can still be characterized by repeated
occurrences of genocide, slavery, racism and oppression by the state.

|Capitalism is a system o organizing economic production, which has
|succeeded in elevating productivity to levels undreamed of by our
|forefathers.

Notice that this sentence 

(1) endows capitalism with intentionality,

(2) suggests that that the content of that intentionality has been elevating
productivity, and

(3) argues that that intentionality has been successful.

The problem of this is that 

(1) 'capitalism' per se is an analytical category--in this sense it has no
agency, therefore cannot be the locus of intentions either--so

(2) elevating productivity cannot be the intention of a non-actor, therefore

(3) this statement confuses the notion of success with that of an 
unintended 
consequences.

In addition, and worse yet, if you factor environmental damage, depletion of
human immune systems and the limited history and unlimited possibility of
nuclear / biological wars as direct concomitants of those productivity
increases, it is kind of difficult to be so sanguine even about those
unintended consequences. On a more personal note, there is nothing like
a good-sized Chernobil nuclear cloud covering over the early May sunshine to
make you a bit sarcastic about techno progress.

|                In the beginning it might have achieved such ends through
|paying their workers the lowest possible wages, 

"In the beginning"? Oh, come on. What's the last time you went on less than
$1 a day? Just checking, because that is what the majority of humankind 
does.
Maybe you are actually thinking that today is (still in) the beginning.

|                                               but lately its success in
|increasing prosperity is due to stimulating human ingenuity and
|technological progress.

:-))

See above re: techno progress.

|On the other hand it has resulted in an absurd concentration of wealth in
|very few hands, which is the reason why some socialistic remedies are an
|integral part of my proposals for Global Keynesianism.
|
|2. You say that Socialism's pitfalls require socialist solutions, just as
|capitalism's pitfalls require capitalist solutions. 
|In practice China went all out to adopt capitalistic practices to improve
|the efficiency of their socialitic economy and even Cuba had to do that in
|a small scale. 
|On the other hand Norway and other Democracies based on Capitalism have
|adopted socialistic policies in order attend many of their social problems
|and especially to achieve a less unequal distribution of wealth. 
|As far as I can judge such policies were VERY successful in both cases.

So, you advocate a global social-democratic Keynesian welfare state. May I
ask where the state power necessary for the collection of those taxes and
redistribution and protection from rampant, large-scale plunder by 
mafia-style organizations, etc. would come from? And what would be the bases
of a global social acquiescence? In the case of Norway (Sweden, Finland,
Denmark, Netherlands, etc., etc.) we do know where it came from
historically: from very concrete struggles between very concrete social
groupings for/against redistributive legislation and control over the
redistributive machine. On this level, any discussion of global Keynesianism
reverts to a discussion of a world state (which we never did anyway as much
of the world political discussion has been about how various people with
excellent organizational names suggest that the world party should follow
their, only true, line.) 

One small point though: in my mind, it is no coincidence that the social
democratic welfare state is crumbling at the same historical time as the
Stalinist imperial version of state socialism is drawing to a close. The
contribution of the cold war to the power of the reformist left position, 
and
the right's willingness to enter into the Keynesien arrangement in western
Europe have been tremendous.

best,

Jozsef Borocz