From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Thu Dec 04 2003 - 15:42:24 EST
At 09:41 04/12/2003 -0800, Rakesh wrote:
>So Glyn is a Sraffian? OK. Isn't he like Bhaduri and Marglin an
>exponent of a social democratic reform of capitalism, a creation of a
>cooperative capitalism? Again Bhaduri is to be admired because he
>clarifies that the synthesis of Sraffa-Kalecki implies social
>democratic politics, not Marxian politics. The question is, then,
>whether he is correct that the synthesis logically and necessarily
>points in that political direction rather than a Marxian one. And I
>think that he is. Now Henwood, Devine and many others say that social
>democracy cannot work because full employment will not be politically
>tolerated. But I already responded to this a long time ago in reply
>to Allin. This point only implies a need for a corporatism by which
>wage demands can be restrained in the approach to full
>employment--wage demands would not have to be crushed, only
>restrained. Indeed this is exactly what Pollin calls for on the basis
>of the success of the Swedish social democratic party in achieving
>full employment and low inflation for forty years. He calls for
>social democratic corporatism, and that seems indeed to be the
>political implication of the Sraffian/Kaleckian synthesis. At least
>that's what Bhaduri thinks follows politically from the S-K
>synthesis.
What makes a theory (which is to be distinguished from the expressed
politics of the one holding the theory) 'social democratic' rather than
Marxian?
in solidarity,
michael
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 13 2003 - 00:00:01 EST