From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Jan 03 2007 - 11:35:22 EST
My assessment is that during the 80s the removal of the balance of payments Constraint by North Sea oil allowed the export of capital ( along with the Removal of exchange controls ). This is what allowed Thatcher to deliberately run down manufacturing industry to reduce the size of the industrial working class. The export of capital allowed the City to become more important relative to industrial capital, shifting the balance of forces between industrial and financial capital to the benefit of the most parasitic and unproductive sector. In my view the return to dominance of the financial sector within the social formation dates from the end of the 70s or start of the 80s. I am in agreement with you about the end point reached, but I differ in my assessment of the intermediate stages along the way. I enclose a paper I have recently written covering the same ground as your latest paper. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU Sent: 03 January 2007 13:50 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) in response to David Yaffe ---------------------------- Original Message ------------------------- Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) in response to David Yaffe From: david@danyaf.plus.com Date: Wed, January 3, 2007 5:51 am To: "OPE-L" <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul C, You are simply looking at changes in policy necessary to rebuild British imperialism after the Second World War and calling them anti-imperialist. The six articles I listed give concrete evidence showing how Labour government's have been staunch defenders of British imperialism's interest's throughout the world. The third article in FRFI 163 shows how Labour governments rebuilt British imperialism as the second major imperialist power after the war. This is the article you need to look at. The book Labour: a party fit for imperialism by Robert Clough, Larkin Publications 1992 goes into the policies you discuss in great detail. It shows that Labour was never a socialist party but represented the interests of privileged sections of the British working class, that is, it was necessarily imperialist, racist and anti-working class. Paul B has already dealt with your main points so there is little point in my repeating them. I was aware that you saw Labour's intervention in Ireland as in some ways progressive - a view held by many sections of the left in Britain. The SWP/(IS) defended Labour sending British troops into Ireland. How has Britain managed to retain the City of London as a leading, some would now say the leading, centre of world financial capital? By progressive anti-imperialist policies!? David Yaffe At 14:18 02/01/2007 +0000, you wrote: >David, in my earlier messages I mentioned specific policies that the >Labour govts took that were anti-imperialist. You do not engage with these >points but just say that you don't believe how anyone could have a >different view from yourself. You do not answer with respect to specific >policy issues. > >I will go back to the most important point - Indian independence. You >ignore this, but India was the bulk of the empire in terms of population >and wealth in 1945. In 1950 it was gone. Contrast this with the policies >followed by the other imperialist powers, Holland, France, Portugal in >Indonesia, Indo-China and Africa where military suppression was used to >attempt to hold onto the colonies. The Labour Party by contrast carried >out it manifesto commitement to colonial freedom. > >Are you claiming that Indian independence was a sham, that Nehru was just >a British puppet dictator? That it remained contrary to all appearances >part of the Empire? > >In this Labour were opposed by Churchill and the Tories. The right of the >Tories with close links to the colonial bourgeoisie was even calculating >how many divisions they would need to retake India on coming back to >power. Again one can contrast the position of Blair with that of even a >right wing social democrat like Gaitskill over Suez with Blair over Iraq. >Gaitskill opposed the attempt by the Tories to re-assert imperial power >over Egypt, Blair launched an illegal invasion of an indendent state - a >clear example of imperial aggression. > >My view is that the Labour Party were what it says on the bottle - a >socialist party arising out of the trades union movement. They were >anti-imperialist and anti-racist and their leadership held the colonial >bourgeoisie of South Africa and Kenya for instance in contempt. The Labour >Party was anti-communist and made absolutely no bones about this, joint >membership of the CP and Labour Party was prohibited, and the Labour Party >was loyal to NATO. Its strengths and its weaknesses were what you would >expect of a Socialist as opposed to a Communist party. > >I read your article but I admit that I read it relatively quickly and >concentrated on what it said about the present. I did not notice it having >an extensive coverage of the 1940s or the 1960s, but I will go and check it >Out again. > >Paul C > >-----Original Message----- >From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of >ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU >Sent: 02 January 2007 00:25 >To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > >Server didn't deliver this message so I am forwarding./In solidarity, Jerry > >----- Original Message ----- >From: david@danyaf.plus.com >To: OPE-L >Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 5:13 PM >Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > >I cannot believe that anyone who has studied the history of British >imperialism could argue that Labour governments since the Second World War >have been anti-imperialist. Blair's government is nothing essentially new. >Labour governments have always been staunch defenders of British >imperialism. The 1945 Atlee government was one of the worst. It rebuilt >British finance capital on the backs of millions of oppressed in the >colonies. Yes it is connected with the defence of the Labour aristocracy >in Britain whose status and privilege depend on the super-profits of >imperialism. I have tried to argue these points in great detail with >massive factual corroboration in the series of articles I wrote on the >Labour aristocracy and imperialism and the arguments will not go away >simply because many OPE-L members simply choose to ignore them. More >recently I have pointed out new, unique and important features re British >imperialism/capitalism - I sent OPE-L members the references of the latest >article - only to find Paul Cockshott again ignoring the essential points, >as though Blair is an aberration, and denying the imperialist and racist >character of all Labour governments since the foundation of the Labour >Party in 1906. And again we are back to discussing Marx and Keynes. > >We really need to discuss the actual world we live in and talk about >imperialism. Lenin made some essential points about the Labour >aristocracy, finance capital, parasitism and Kautskyism in discussing >imperialism. I have used Lenin's contribution as an essential guide to my >own research on these questions. Can I give references to my articles >on the Labour Aristocracy and imperialism in relation to British >capitalism again in the hope that we can discuss the the real events and >politics etc > ><http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/161/> ><http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/162/> ><http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/163/> ><http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/164/> ><http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/165/> ><http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/166/> > >The articles can be accessed by scrolling down on the right hand side. > >The post Second World War period is dealt with in FRFI 163. The latest >material on British imperialism which develops and defends the overall >theme is in FRFI 194. The latter is important re the significance of >Labour imperialism under Blair and present day Labour leaders. > >David Yaffe > > > > At 20:12 01/01/2007 +0000, you wrote: > > Paul, the fact that the British Empire evaporated between 1945 and 1970 >was in no small part due to the fact that the Labour party was a >socialist party that was simulataneously anti-communist ( of this there >is no doubt ) but also anti-imperialist. Can you seriously deny that >granting independence to India was a progressive measure. It is one that >the Atlee government decided on almost as soon as it came to power, and >it was a step that his conservative opponent Churchill, an arch >imperialist, opposed. The Labour Govt after the war set in trail the >process of dismantling the empire, and were able to do so by virtue of >the fact that they did not have the links to the colonial landholding >class in Kenya etc, that the Tories had. > > Blair is the first Labour prime minister since 45 to be pro-imperialist >and as such constitutes a radical break in this respect with his >predecessors. Note how Healy scotched the plans of the Admiralty to >construct a new generation of Carriers in the 60s, in contrast to this >Blair is going ahead with plans for a new fleet of super-carriers. > > When I said that the Labour Party had an alliance with industrial >capital but was opposed to finance capital, I am making a judgement >about the configuration of class forces in the 1940s through to the late >60s. Finance capital was much weakened by the loss of overseas financial >assets, the need to repay the dollar debt etc. The strict currency >control measures of the Atlee govt were designed to support industrial >capital even if they seriously impeded that traditional operation of >British finance capital. The decisive measure of the Thatcher govt in >this respect was the repeal of these currency and capital export >controls. Consider also Wilsons selective employment tax, an explicit >tax on unproductive labour designed to shift resources into the >productive industrial sector. These are policies designed to benefit >industrial rather than finance capital. > > The current revival of imperialism in Britain stems from the >strengthening of finance capital subsequent to the removal of the >balance of payment constraint ( North Sea Oil) and the removal of >capital movement controls under Thatcher. > > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Bullock > Sent: 01 January 2007 19:15 > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > Dear Claus, > > your questions to Paul Cockshott hit the mark!! The idea of an alliance of > industrial capitalists and workers against finance capital (directed by > Kautsky at the German SDP as part of his game to hold back a real fight) is > simply to sow illusions about 'progressive' allies amongst the capitalist > class ( Ford is 'better' than City Bank?). The main problem is the labour > aristocracy who dispense this sort of nonsense, as Lenin and Che Guevara > constantly stressed. It is noticeable that in the list of gains made by > Paul C. the existence of British Imperialism seems to have evaporated, and > the gains made by the workers against British capitalism are seen, or >appear > to be seen, as the result of a joint effort of 'capitalists' AND labour, > rather than the outcome of a constant class struggle forcing the ruling > class on the defensive. At present the same British Imperialist state is > continuing to destroy as many of those gains as possible, and I am sure >that > the Colonial Labour Governments of the late 1940's were certainly no less > sympathetic to British Finance capital than those in government to day. > > The appeals to any of Keynes nonsense rather than the creation of > independent working class arguments to shape our demands really is quite > silly. It reminds me of those publications in the late 60's and early >1970's > 'comparing' favourably Marx and Keynes. I find it quite disturbing that > Keynes whose support for imperialism was never in doubt ( see even his > school boy positions on Ireland!) should even be in the discussion now > circumstances no longer permit the use of his ideas in any coherent way by > the ruling class. > > Regards > > Paul Bullock > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2006 3:59 PM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > It was progressive in the concrete circumstances of the late 1940s in >that > it allowed the following > > > > 1. A massive increase in working class living standards over a 25 year > period that had been > > unmatched in the previous history of capitalism > > > > 2. A more rapid development of the productive forces than ever before > under capitalism > > > > 3. Full employment which strengthened the relative position of labour >with > respect to capital > > > > 4. The gradual encroachment of public property over private property in > the means of production > > > > 5. The establishment of a health care system based on the marxist > principle of from each according to their ability to each according to >their > need > > > > The leadership of the labour movement was socialist but only in the > British Christian socialist tradition, not the marxian tradition. Its > achievements were undoubtedly progressive when compared to what proceeded > it. > > > > Paul Cockshott > > > > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: OPE-L on behalf of cmgermer@UFPR.BR > > Sent: Sun 12/31/2006 1:28 PM > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > Paul, > > I would make you one question about the following paragraph of your post: > > > > > > > > You are obviously quite right about his class position as part of the > > > liberal bourgeoisie, but he represents the interest of real productive > > > capital against finance capital and his essays in persuasion in the 20s > > > and 30s were an extended polemic against the policies imposed by >finance > > > capital. As such they laid the grounds for a class alliance between > > > industrial capital and the labour movement against finance capital >which > > > came into effect during the war and persisted during the 50s. Relative > to > > > what had gone before this was a progressive step and there is >nothing to > > > be gained by denying this, but it was obviously not a socialist >economic > > > program. > > > > > > > according to what criteria, from the point of view of the workers, is an > > "alliance between industrial capital and the labour movement against > > finance capital", whose goal is to stabilize the capitalist system >when it > > is at risk, a progressive step? Was the labour movement in England led by > > socialist workers? > > > > comradely, > > Claus. > > > > > > > > > > In the context in Germany today, as I understand it from talking to > Helmut > > > Dunkhase, who I think you know, there is a considerable dominance of > left > > > Keynesian thinking in the Links Partei, so I understand your attempt to > > > polemicise against Keynes. In the current crisis of the German economy > it > > > is my intuition that there are considerable monetary influences so that > a > > > truly radical Keynesian polemic might touch on certain real causes of > the > > > recession. For instance, the role of the European Stability Pact and >the > > > European Central Bank policy are probably aggravating the recession. > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time any move to a socialist economy based on labour value > > > would involve a radical change in the monetary system. The challenge >for > > > us as Marxist economists is to tie in the conjunctural crisis with a >set > > > of policy measures which when put into practice would both work, and > > > provide a transition path towards socialism that was more radical than > the > > > transition path to state capitalism that was provided in the UK by > Keynes > > > in the 1940s. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not read again Lenin's the Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat > It, > > > and see if you can come up with transitional measures that would >work in > > > the German context. You will not make headway against Gysi an theorists > > > like Steignitz unless you can propose alternative measures. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dogan Goecmen > > > Sent: 30 December 2006 21:51 > > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul, thank you for your comments. Well, that is what I am saying. > Keynes > > > wants to criticise classical political economy. But he does not do that > > > because he does not really engage with classics. In the article I > suggest > > > that Keynes' economic theory is as formal as all other vulgar economic > > > theories. Classical politial economy, by contrast, is material >theory of > > > political economy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan > > > > > > > > > > > > In einer eMail vom 30.12.2006 22:36:19 Westeuropäische Normalzeit > schreibt > > > wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK: > > > > > > This analysis rests at the level of intentionality - what was > > > Keynes intention, it does not get to the internal structure of > > > Keynes theory and identify where it is different from neoclassical > > > or classical political economy. I agree that Keynes was very > > > sloppy in his treatment of the classicals, but I suspect that he > > > understood them through Marshall rather than on their own account. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Dogan > > > Goecmen > > > Sent: 29 December 2006 15:33 > > > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > > > Subject: [OPE-L] Keynes and Marx (German) > > > > > > > > > > > > A short paper of mine on the relationship of Keynes and Marx. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan > > > > > > > > > > > > Dogan Göcmen > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes und Marx > > > > > > Das Wesen und Verhältnis zweier Theorien > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Der Marxismus ist mit Abstand die einzige Theorie in der > > > Ideengesichte, die seit ihrer Geburtsstunde zum Gegenstand der > > > schmutzigsten Behandlungen wurde. Was hat da Marx aus der Taufe > > > gehoben, dass selbst seine Erzfeinde es nicht mehr lassen können? > > > > > > > > > > > > Es ist wohl eine Ironie der Geschichte, dass seine Theorie > > > ausgerechnet in seinem Land der Denker und Dichter, totgeschwiegen > > > wurde, so dass Marx, seine treue Lebensgefährtin und Engels selbst > > > zu Feder greifen und Briefe an alle Bekannten, Freunde und an die > > > Redaktionen der Gazetten schreiben mussten: Der lang ersehnte > > > erste Band des "Kapital" ist endlich erschienen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Als die Theorie sich ihre eigenen Kanäle schuf und eine > > > gesellschaftlich materielle Kraft wurde, da half das Totschweigen > > > nicht mehr. Dieses Mal griffen die Gegner zur Feder, um die > > > Theorie, die seit etwa 1890er Jahren nach Engels' Prägung des > > > Begriffs "Marxismus" genannt wird, frontal anzugreifen, gerade als > > > der Geburthelfer der Theorie sich nicht mehr selber wehren konnte. > > > Als das auch nicht mehr half, musste man ihre Gegentheorien > > > entgegenstellen. Dabei war ihnen jedes Mittel recht. Sie > > > arbeiteten mit ähnlichen, ja oft mit denselben, aber mit Sinn > > > entleerten und demagogisch bestimmten, Begriffen. Vom Geiste waren > > > sie aber alle Erzfeinde des Marxismus. Die Webersche > > > Gesellschaftstheorie und die Heideggersche Philosophie zählen zu > > > dieser Sorte der Kopfgeburten. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes' Programm zur Kritik der klassischen politischen >Ökonomie > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes' Hauptwerk ist die Allgemeine Theorie der Beschäftigung, > > > des Zinses und des Geldes (Duncker & Humbolt, 1994; Zitate in > > > Klammern), das er der klassischen politischen Ökonomie > > > entgegenstellen will. Er will also wie Marx die klassische > > > politische Ökonomie kritisieren. Insofern ist sein Hauptwerk auch > > > ein Antiprogramm gegen die Marxsche Kritik. Er gibt das offen zu. > > > Er schreibt nämlich, dass er "die Theorie von Ricardo - Marx > > > widerlegen" möchte. (H. Meißner, Bürgerliche Ökonomie ohne > > > Perspektive, 1976, 124) > > > > > > > > > > > > Er weitet aber den von Marx geprägten Begriff der klassischen > > > politischen Ökonomie bis Unkenntlichkeit aus, dass seine > > > Auseinandersetzung nicht mehr mit den Klassikern, sondern eher mit > > > ihrer verzerrten Interpretationen stattfindet. Seine Kritik ist > > > deshalb zugleich eine Zurechtbiegung der Vulgärökonomie. Wer in > > > diesem Antiprogramm gegen Marxsche Kritik von Keynes aufgezeigt > > > haben möchte, wo sie geirrt hat, muss enttäuscht werden. In dem > > > ganzen Buch wird Marx nur drei Mal erwähnt, auf Adam Smith gibt es > > > einige unbedeutende Hinweise. Nur Ricardo wird am ausführlichsten > > > diskutiert, die allerdings nicht Diskussion genannt werden kann. > > > Man darf in diesem Werk auch keine Auseinandersetzung mit > > > klassischen Begriffen wie Arbeit, Arbeitswertlehre (obwohl er sich > > > doch mit der Arbeitslosigkeit auseinandersetzen möchte), Ware, > > > Wert, Mehrwert erwarten. > > > > > > Keynes genießt ein gewisses Ansehen, weil er die neoliberale > > > Wirtschaftspolitik kritisiert. Doch was ihn mit Neoliberalen und > > > allen anderen Vulgärökonomen verbindet und von den Klassikern > > > unterscheidet, ist sein formaler Ansatz. Die Klassiker und ebenso > > > Marx als deren Kritiker bedienen sich einem materiellen Ansatz. > > > Bei diesem geht es um die Vermittlung zwischen dem Wesen und den > > > Erscheinungsformen, während bei jenem sich nur um > > > Erscheinungsformen handelt. Dies erklärt auch, warum er den > > > klassischen Begriff der Arbeit, wo es um die Vermittlung zwischen > > > dem Wesen und den Erscheinungsformen der Arbeit geht, durch einen > > > vorklassischen Begriff, wo es die Arbeit nicht gibt, sondern nur > > > verschiedene Arbeiten, ersetzen möchte. > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes' eigene Ortsbestimmung > > > > > > > > > > > > Trotz vieler "Linken", die Hoffnungen in Keynes hegen, bestimmt > er > > > seinen Standort klar: "Wie kann ich ein Bekenntnis annehmen [den > > > Marxismus], das ... das klobige Proletariat über Bürgertum und > > > Intelligentia emporsteigert, die trotz aller Fehler doch die Werte > > > des Lebens darstellen und wahrhaftig die Saat aller menschlichen > > > Vervollkommnung enthalten?" (Meißner, 124) Deshalb sagt er: "Wenn > > > es als solche zum Klassenkampf kommt, ... der Klassenkrieg wird > > > mich auf der Seite der gebildeten Bourgeoisie finden". (I. > > > Mészáros, The Power of Ideology, Zed Books 2005, xi) Diese > > > Aussagen sprechen für sich. Unverständlich ist nur, warum manche > > > "Linke" aus einem, der sich offen zum Klassengegner erklärt, > > > Bündnispartner machen wollen. > > > > > > > > > > > > Das wirtschaftpolitische Ziel des Keynesianismus > > > > > > Der Keynesianismus rühmt sich damit, dem Problem der > > > Arbeitslosigkeit eine Lösung gefunden zu haben. Was ist die > > > Grundfehler der kapitalistischen Gesellschaft? Keynes: "Die > > > hervorstechenden Fehler der wirtschaftlichen Gesellschaft, in der > > > wir leben, sind ihr Versagen, für Vollbeschäftigung Vorkehrung zu > > > treffen und ihre willkürliche und unbillige Verteilung des > > > Reichtums und der Einkommen." (314) > > > > > > > > > > > > Wie weit möchte Keynes in der Bekämpfung der "willkürliche[n] > und > > > unbillige[n] Verteilung des Reichtums" gehen? Keynes: "Ich selber > > > glaube, daß bedeutsame Ungleichheiten von Einkommen und Reichtum > > > gesellschaftlich und psychologisch gerechtfertigt sind, aber nicht > > > so große Ungleichheiten, wie sie heute bestehen." (315) > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes möchte durch eine richtige Analyse die Krankheit > > > Arbeitslosigkeit heilen. Wie? "Ich sehe keinen Grund anzunehmen, > > > daß das bestehende System die in Gebrauch befindliche > > > Erzeugungsfaktoren [er möchte wohl "Produktivkräfte" sagen, - DG] > > > ernstlich fehlbeschäftigt." (320) Wenn es Arbeitslose gibt, dann > > > muss man für sie eine Beschäftigung schaffen. Die Existenz der > > > Arbeitslosigkeit an sich beweist aber nicht, dass die "Richtung > > > der tatsächlichen Beschäftigung" falsch ist, wie etwa Marx sagen > > > würde, sondern die "Bestimmung der Menge". (320) Man muss aber für > > > die Arbeitslosen unbedingt eine Beschäftigung finden. Sonst: "Es > > > ist sicher, daß die Welt die Arbeitslosigkeit, die, von kurzen > > > Zeiträumen der Belebung abgesehen - nach meiner Ansicht > > > unvermeidlich - mit dem heutigen kapitalistischen Individualismus > > > verbunden ist, nicht viel länger dulden wird." (321) Keynes will > > > also nicht die Lohnarbeit abschaffen, wie Marx es einfordert, > > > sondern den "klobigen" Arbeitslosen eine wie auch immer geartete > > > Beschäftigung geben, sonst bestehe die Gefahr, dass sie sich in > > > Revolutionäre verwandeln. > > > > > > > > > > > > Keynes kritisiert die neoliberale Wirtschaftstheorie. Das ist > > > soweit richtig. Diese Kritik ist aber einzig und allein von der > > > Sorge getragen, dass dies zum Zusammenbruch des Systems führen > > > könnte. Er schlägt er eine Wirtschaftspolitik vor, die er"... als > > > das einzige durchführbare Mittel, [um] die Zerstörung der > > > bestehenden wirtschaftlichen Formen in ihrer Gesamtheit zu > > > vermeiden...." (321) Diese Sorge wird heute vom konservativen > > > Norbert Blüm genauso geteilt wie vom selbsternannten Sozialisten > > > Gregor Gysi. Blüm sagt: Die Wirtschaftspolitik der Regierung wird > > > das System zum Zusammenbruch führen. Gysi sag: Die Widersprüche > > > des Kapitalismus verschärfen sich und auch die Kritik am > > > Kapitalismus muss schärfer werden. Aber das darf nicht zur > > > Rechtfertigung der DDR führen und meint damit den Sozialismus. > > > Also der konservativen Losung folgend alles ändern, damit es beim > > > Alten bleibt. > > > > > > > > > > > > Heinz Jung hat vor mehr als zehn Jahren davor gewarnt, dass der > > > Neokeynesianismus als Staatspolitik zur Stabilisierung des Systems > > > wiederkehren könnte. Die Linke darf also dem Keynesianismus nicht > > > zur Wiedergeburt verhelfen, sondern muss sein Geist neben > > > Neoliberalismus auch gegen alle Formen des Keynesianismus > > > schärfen. Nicht umsonst hat Lenin Keynes als "eingefleischter > > > Gegner des Bolschewismus" genannt. (LW 31, 207)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 31 2007 - 00:00:05 EST