From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Mon Jan 01 2007 - 16:27:46 EST
Paul, I have difficulties to follow this logic. The way you make the point seems to put us before an alternative between Hayek and Keynes, between neoliberal parties and social democrats. But are these two positions (parties) real alternatives we have to accept? Or do we need to establish a third front that of real socialist movement based on Marx's critique of political economy. Think of Owen. He criticised Malthus and laissez faire policies. though he also developed ideas about how to reform capitalism in favour of working classes. Particularly, in his later writings he always referred to the concept of socialism to highlight the fact that there is a needs for essential change in the property relations of the means of production. The socialist and working class movement lost this last mentioned project just becase they thought capitalism was reforming itself and there was no need for revolutionary changes. Cheers Dogan In einer eMail vom 01.01.2007 22:10:14 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK: I would agree with the point that you make below about co-option, but in the process the interests of finance capital and the colonial bourgeoisie had to take second place. But you should not deal with the state in the abstract, abstracting from real political parties, their class basis and their programatic aims. Keynes ideas provided to social democracy a form of political economy that enabled them to at least carry out some progressive measures. If you contrast the political economy of Macdonald to that of Atlee you can see the significance of the change brought about by Keynes. Paul Cockshott www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Dogan Goecmen Sent: Mon 1/1/2007 8:30 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) It is also necessary to take into account the circumstances of the class struggle at the international level. Doing so, it is possible to argue that the alliance you suggest was not directed against finance capital but against the (revolutionary) socialist movement worldwide, at a time when the USSR had defeated nazism and the communists in the countries occupied by the Nazi army had been among the main forces that fought the invadors. Communism all over the world and the Communist parties in many Western European countries increased very significantly their political influence. Thus, it was highly necessary for the capitalist class to coopt their workers. Claus, I find your remarks above extreemly interesting. This is exacly the point that explains the success of Keynesianism. This is also the point I was trying to make in the passage below. >> >> Der Keynesianismus, der ein englisches Produkt ist, ist auch in >> diese Tradition einzuordnen und sein Verhältnis zum Marxismus ist >> im Lichte dieser Entwicklung zu sehen. Seinerzeit musste schon der >> zynische liberale John Stuart Mill, der zuerst die in England >> geboren Idee des Sozialismus, zum Fremdkörper erklärte, musste >> unter dem Druck der Straße, ohne seinen eklektisch liberalen Geist >> aufzugeben, an Marxismus Zugeständnisse machen. Doch nach der >> Oktoberrevolution half all das nicht mehr. Da musste eine >> konservative Theorie mit einem linken 'Anschein' erfunden werden. >> In der Wirtschaftstheorie entspricht der Keynesianismus diesem >> Bedürfnis. Cheers Dogan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST