Paul Riesz writes the following in reference to my comments:
> You and many of your ideological comrades would - of
course - prefer
> more drastic solutions, but if past history gives us any
clues, such
> extremist programs are bound up with dictatorial governments
which
> sooner or later lead to the bloody excesses of Stalin and Pol
Pot,
> since
> POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS
ABSOLUTELY.
-------------------------------------------------
That's real cute -- "you and your ideological
comrades" . It kinda makes it sound like I (and my "ideological
comrades") don't care about real live, flesh-and-blood humans, but rather are
preoccupied with adhering to some rigid doctrine -- as opposed to those who
support the liberal imperialists (albeit with some criticisms) who are
supposedly concerned about "people" instead of ideologies.
These are empirical questions, that can be discussed, if not settled,
by evidence. Which has cost more human lives and created more suffering--
the bloody Chinese government and years of Communist Party rule, or
the "peaceful" transition of Gandhi and his friends, and the continuing mass
starvation, disease, child slavery, that has destroyed so many millions of lives
there over the past fifty years? What might have happened in the world if
there were no Soviet Revolution and a pro-fascist Tsarist Russia formed an
alliance with Nazi Germany? And who created Pol Pot (I'll give you a hint: The
massive U.S. destabilization of Indochina had just a little to do with it
-- as well as significant U.S. govt. support for Pol Pot as an ally against the
pro-Soviet forces.)
There is the unstated assumption, shared by conservatives and Keynesians
alike, that with all its weaknesses, the capitalist model still guarantees more
"freedom" from "absolute power" than the Marxist model. Tell that to the victims
of capitalist-imperialism--from the victims of mass murderous coups and
regimes from Chile to Indonesia to Iran, the Congo, Guatemala, Honduras,
Argentina, and Greece, Palestine, South Africa and a hundred other places,
to the many tens of millions more who die slower, more painful deaths from mass
disease created by militarily enforced capitalism. (Forty thousand will die of
(preventable) measles in Ethiopia alone this year....try mentally projecting
that misery across the whole world to begin to get a better picture of the scale
of capitalism's depredations.)
The supposedly "non-absolute power" of
the capitalists, including their willing partners, the
pro-imperialist liberals and social democrats, and including "Lord"
Keynes have been responsible for misery, suffering, and death that
truly dwarf whatever happened in "Stalin's Russia."
Until intellectuals and activists in the so-called "First World" understand
this, they will continue to be, at best irrelevant, and at worst, partners in
this miserable set of affairs.
Alan Spector
P.S. Of course Keynsian Economics, "priming the pump" (or saving the
patient from blood loss shock by pumping in plasma, or taking a shot of caffeine
to borrow some of tomorrow's heartbeats for today, or whatever metaphor you want
to use) can have a short term effect of softening the crisis of capitalism for a
while. But the fundamental question is whether capitalism can meet people's
needs, and furthermore, whether those in power will EVER relinquish power
without "drastic" measures being forced on them. It is not something that any of
us look forward to, but right now, the "drastic" circumstances that many people
are being forced to endure from the garbage dumps of Rio to the sex slave shops
of Bangkok are just as "drastic" to them as the reality of "ideological-drastic"
measures in the so-called "First World" might be to people there.
====================================================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 22, 2001 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Can capitalism be reformed?
> > To Alan Spector:
> >
According to your last post, Keynesian policies are bound up with
> >
exploitation of 3rd world countries.
> > To find out whether there is
any logical foundation for this
> > assumption, let us consider his
basic principles
> > As I see them, they can be resumed as
follows:
> > 1. the economy needs investment both from the private and
the public
> > sectors and
> > 2. in order to soften the
business cycle, Governments must invest MORE
> > during recessions, in
order to be able to employ people, who lost
> > their private sector
jobs. To finance such investments, governments
> > must REDUCE their
investments and SAVE during boom times.
> >
> > This has
absolutely NOTHING to do with whatever exploitation of third
> > world
countries might or might not have happened at any time.
> >
>
> Keynesian policies were abandoned NOT because they had lost their
>
> validity, but because politicians stimulated the economy NOT to
soften
> > the business cycle, but before election in order to win
them.
> >
> > At present there is great need to reintroduce
Keynesian policies,
> > because so many well paying industrial jobs are
being eliminated
> > through automation, relocation, outsizing and
restructuring.
> > To have any chance for success, such a movement
would have to
> > implement new checks and balances in order to prevent
abuses and
> > excesses by unscrupulous politicians, while on the other
hand find
> > ways to eliminate the worldwide domination by
transnational
> > corporations.
> >
> > These are
enormous (maybe almost superhuman) but nevertheless not
> > quite
hopeless tasks, since at present so many people are willing to
> > act
decisively AGAINST the present world order. What is therefore
> >
needed is to channel such energies AWAY FROM PURELY NEGATIVE PROTESTS
>
> into more POSITIVE movements towards a better world system; one
that
> > would preserve the best features of private enterprise,
while
> > reactivating an efficient public supervision.
>
>
> > You and many of your ideological comrades would - of course -
prefer
> > more drastic solutions, but if past history gives us any
clues, such
> > extremist programs are bound up with dictatorial
governments which
> > sooner or later lead to the bloody excesses of
Stalin and Pol Pot,
> > since
> > POWER CORRUPTS AND ABSOLUTE
POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.
> >
Regards
Paul
> >
>