Can capitalism be reformed?

Dear Richard;
In your posting of April, you said:
"Yes, after World War II, the principles of Lord Keynes 'were applied'
with temporary beneficial result for Northern (Western) populations. 
You might think about who it was who decided to apply them, who it is
who decided later to stop applying them, and why they did so.

In this regard, it is important to understand that there was a growth
plan in operation.  That plan was based on extensive development of the
South (third world), and the plan worked very well, from the perspective
of capitalist elites.  Huge profits were generated, enough to share with
Northern workers and middle classes, while still permitting acceptable
corporate profits and capital growth.  This gave us an era in the North
not only of prosperity, but also of general popular support for the
regime."

You will probably accuse me again of being rude, if I insist that you
are expressing your convictions, WITHOUT providing any logical proof.

The basic principle of Lord Keynes is for the state to soften the
business cycle through greater public investments during recessions.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with growth or exploitation of the
South and would work equally well if there were NO trade at all between
North and South.

Whether or not the prosperity of the industrialized world depends on
such exploitation is a debatable point that was NOT in discussion

You then go on:
"But then around 1972 or so the growth began to decline. Growth ~always~
must decline, eventually, in any particular market situation.  This has
happened repeatedly throughout the history of capitalism. In this case,
world markets were becoming saturated, and prices were being driven down
on world markets by Japanese competition.  Recessions and 'stagflation'
were plaguing Northern economies, and new avenues for growth needed to
be found.  Such avenues ~were~ found, and they are called
'neoliberalism' (i.e., Reganism, Thatcherism, globalization, etc.)"

What you are describing is a downward swing of the business cycle, and
that is exactly what Keynesianism can soften, if not entirely eliminate.
The alternative policies of neoliberalism are at the root of our present
problems and a return to Keynesianism is - in my modest opinion - by far
the best alternative available.

Your opinions are more to the point, when you say:
"Also part of neoliberalism is an attack on unions, reductions in real
wages and benefits, and the
flight of investment to the lower-waged South.  Thus, one of the ways
neoliberalism provides new growth to capital is by grabbing part of 'our
piece' of the economic pie."

Later you say:
"Your Keynesian example does not prove that growth is not required by
capitalism."  

Here you are inverting the process.
YOU are the one, who must PROVE your first article of faith, that
capitalism cannot exist without continuing growth.
By logic, capitalism - meaning the private property of most of
production plants and pricing based on markets can perfectly exist and
prosper without any growth.
Any growth observed in capitalist countries is due to 2 factors:
1 The increase of populations and
2. A higher living standard in such countries.
I agree that such growth was achieved -at least partially - through
grossly unfair trading practices and wasteful use of natural resources.
That is why I am clamoring for a reform of the - at present
predominating  - neoliberal version of capitalism.

My detailed proposals for such a reform might be difficult to carry out,
but to believe that they have some chance of being carried out is not as
farfetched as your conviction, that all the problems of our society
could be solved through abolishing hierarchies and harmonizing conflicts
starting a local communities and later progressing to higher levels. 

If you really want to convince us, you would have to indicate any
modern, non-homogeneous local community., where such harmonizations have
EVER worked. 

Returning to my proposals, Keynesianism alone might mot be enough to
achieve the better society, both of us are striving for, but it would be
a decisive factor. Remember also that I have indicated not one, but many
countries, where Keynesianism really worked in the past.

Regards            Paul