GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM

Re my remark that State Capitalism or State Socialism did not benefit
ordinary citizens, I stand corrected:
Considerable economic progress was achieved by some countries of the Soviet
bloc during forced industrialization, though such progress later declined,
when technology brought in from outside was no longer sufficient and when
central planning failed to be competitive with the ingenuity and
supervision of market based economies.
There also were significant social benefits, such as free education and
healthcare.
On the other hand the enormous power wielded by such governments, plus the
lack of checks and balances led to tremendous abuses towards minorities
(Gulag, Cambodia) and there was a lack of human rights which cannot be
appreciated by people who never had to live without them.
Such considerations brought a degree of general unhappiness, which led to
the final downfall of the Soviet empire.

But these considerations are really beside the point: 
the discussion started with my concrete proposals for addressing many of
the ills of our present World system with Keynesianism on a global scales.
A similar system has been very successful in the past and could be very
effective again through avoiding some human mistakes. It could achieve such
results without depriving us of our freedoms and human rights and
especially without the need for violent upheavals.

People like Andrew Austin are violently opposed to this Global
Keynesianism, because they want us to wait for a democratic version of true
Socialism. Such a system has never been achieved before, probably for some
quite logical reasons (I am willing to explain my ideas on this subject in
some detail to anyone interested).

But if they think that we are wrong, there is  an easy way to convince us: 
LET THEM DEMONSTRATE THEIR IDEAS IN PRACTICE.

Regards Paul Riesz