Re: GLOBAL KEYNESIANISM

On Sun, 30 Apr 2000, Paul Riesz wrote:

>But whatever your definition, your opposition to Keynesianism in favor of
>waiting for a democratic version of Marxism, means preferring a dream that
>has never before worked and probably cannot work ever, to a system that has
>been very successful in the past and would be relatively easy to carry out
>again.

You have formed a false dilemma. On this very list not but a few days ago
I articulated my position and it clearly did not advocate waiting for a
democratic version of "Marxism" (whatever that means).

The choice is not between settling for Keynesianism or waiting for
communism. There is a wide range of choices available to us and, as I have
articulated, a multilevel strategy is required, one that emphasizes
replacing capitalism in the long-run and improving people's lives in the
meantime. This is why I support extensive social welfare services,
nationalized medicine, full employment laws and unemployment insurance,
social security, public education, extremely progressive income taxes,
strict environmental regulations, affirmative action, etc. 

I challenge the notion that permitting the continuation of private
ownership and control over the forces of production is to the benefit of
the whole of society. I question it because social justice does not
require policies that are to the benefit of the whole of society.
Socialism eliminates the capitalist class and subordinates the manager to
the work force. Certainly these groups will not find such a move to their
benefit, and they will, as they have always have, resist such a change.
Yet social justice ultimately requires the elimination of these social
strata.

To advocate the golden mean (actually a fallacious line of reasoning) is
to perpetuate injustice. We currently live in a patriarchy. No doubt
people can rationalize the superiority of the patriarchal system by
comparing the level of development of the more patriarchal societies with
the lesser ones. But does it sound reasonable to say that we should not
dismantle the patriarchy but rather find some way to preserve it to the
benefit of the "whole of society," of which women are but a part? Reducing
gender inequality is certainly not in the interests of men. I am a man,
and a serious program of gender equality would greatly reduce my
privileges. I welcome this because I believe in justice. Other men think
of their selfish interests, and thus oppose efforts to make society more
gender equitable (the majority of men are in this camp).

I wonder, would the failings of a society with significantly reduced
gender inequality be used as an argument for the patriarchy?

What about racial caste? Countries that practice racism have been very
successful by capitalist standards. The United States, which is held up as
the greatest success of capitalism, is among the most racist societies in
history. Shall we rationalize racial hierarchies by trying to find a way
to put the system to the service of the "whole society," of which the
racially oppressed are only a part? Such a statement is absurd, isn't it?
I am white. A program of racial equality will greatly reduce the racial
privileges I have enjoyed by virtue of my skin color. It is obviously not
in my selfish interests to support this. While I support reparations as a
matter of social justice, most whites do not, as it would substantially
compromise their living standards. This is why whites have generally
opposed efforts to achieve substantive racial equality.

Would the failings of a society that had achieved substantial racial
equality serve as an ideological weapon in the justification of racism?

Blacks in the United States and women throughout the world are analogs to
the position of the working class - and most blacks and women are in the
working class. While ending slavery did not end racial caste, the lives of
blacks were improved and thus the reform was an important one. The 1964
civil rights act was also a significant reform, even though it did not
overturn the racial hierarchy. But the ultimate goal is racial equality
and the elimination of whiteness, not the inclusion of blacks and other
minorities in the system of racial oppression. These reforms are only
*potentially* steps in a chain.

Just as it is immoral and unjust to advocate the preservation of gender
and race inequality, it is immoral and unjust to advocate capitalism as a
permanent historical system because capitalism is built upon the
exploitation of human beings - it systematically produces inequality (it
must - that is the logic of accumulation). Thus whatever reforms are
pursued must be pursued with the larger goal of equality in mind.

The disagreement that we are having, Paul, is over whether capitalism is a
just and desirable system. If the question is whether Keynesianism can
"improve" capitalism and extend its life, then this is a technical
question requiring scant debate. While accomplishing such a thing is
desirable for many people, it cannot make a just system since it is
continuing a system that is intrinsically exploitative. It is fine to say
that you support exploitation and therefore you desire the system and you
wish only to ameliorate the conditions of the working class to keep them
loyal to capitalism (this has been a successful strategy). There are many
who believe this and openly declare their elitism. I just disagree with
this. That's all.

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN