You may disagree with Jamie Galbraith (and we know you do), but I think your characterization is overdone on several counts. He is not a "Bill Clinton" opportunist and your report of his 1971 behavior certainly does not support such a characterization. He is a straightforward, knowledgeable, and committed social democrat along the lines of his dad. You may not like that, but it is a clearly articulated position and one he has consistently held and defends.
I suspect that he is well aware of the historical background of Swedish social democracy and that politically successful social democracy requires a strong base of organized working class support.
Aside to Brad De Long: You have claimed that a Yugoslav type economy is currently not viable as an alternative. You have given no evidence to believe this. I repeat from earlier posts: the "transitional" economy in the best shape is Slovenia that still strongly resembles its Yugoslav model origins with high workers' management and ownership, although the EU wants to force it open to foreign capitalists as a condition of entry. Is this really such a smart way to go? Or is this policy position by the EU the reason such an alternative is "not viable"? Barkley Rosser On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 11:38:11 -0400 Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> wrote:
> >What got Lou upset was my guest on that show, Hugh Patrick of
> >the Colubmia Business School, who knows a hell of a lot more about Japan
> >than all of us put together. Patrick said that Japan has serious problems,
> >but they're not as bad as the English-language press is making them out to
> >be. I don't know for sure one way or the other, and you don't either, even
> >if you think you do.
> >
> >Doug
>
> Doug, your problem is that you seem unconstitutionally incapable of taking
> a position. This is the difference between you and Marxist revolutionaries
> like Ernest Mandel. Everything that Mark Jones and I write represents
> advocacy of one sort or another. That is how socialism will come about, as
> the force of our arguments persuade growing numbers of people.
>
> While you are tremendous asset to the radical movement, I don't think that
> you will ever be able to make the shift and it is probably just as well
> that you continue to provide the kind of services you are providing now.
>
> The problem with your interview with Hugh Patrick and many of your
> interviews is that you seem to style yourself after McNeill-Lehrer. I
> suppose this is "objective" journalism, but when you don't challenge Hugh
> Patrick, it is nearly impossible to figure out where you stand. Of course,
> the problem is that you don't want to take a stand so the point is moot.
>
> Last night, you interviewed James Galbraith, who represents the most banal
> sort of left-liberal policy-wonkism. Like his father, he seems to think
> that progress comes about when the ruling class decides to stop acting in a
> foolish and self-destructive manner and begins listening to enlightened
> voices. It is the Plato's Republic model. And completely ridiculous.
>
> Galbraith was urging some sort of enlightened Western European
> social-democratic model on the US, but he is absolutely clueless how these
> regimes came into existence. It was not because the bourgeoisie is more
> "civilized," it is because there are militant, class-conscious socialist
> movements that often resorted to revolutionary violence. For example, the
> first Swedish social democratic government came to power after the general
> strike in 1931, which grew out of a bloody miners strike in the town of
> Adalen.
>
> I would have challenged Galbraith, but you simply played Robert McNeill:
> "So what do you say to those who argue that a decent wage would be
> inflationary." Give me a break.
>
> One last thing on this knucklehead Galbraith. When I was working with the
> Trotskyists in the Harvard Student Mobilization Committee in 1971, Jamie
> Galbraith nearly co-opted the committee into supporting Democratic Party
> "peace candidates". I debated him at a meeting of over 100 students and
> helped to keep the SMC independent. My impression of Galbraith was that he
> was just another opportunist who was using the cachet of the peace movement
> to advance his career. Just like Bill Clinton, in other words.
>
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
-- Rosser Jr, John Barkley rosserjb at jmu.edu