>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 12/22/99 04:32PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
>He probably was arguing like Keynes , on the "pure" economic element.
I don't know how many times this point has to be made: the reason Nazi Germany could tolerate full employment was because of severe political repression. There's no separating the "economic" and the "political." Do I have to quote Kalecki again on this?
((((((((((((
Charles: That's my line. I say it on PEN-L all the time. I'm not the Keynesian here. Yes, the subject is political economy, not economics. So, you disagree with Liu and Keynes on this ?
Specifically, perhaps you will see more now why Dimitroff's definition of fascism which combines the political and economic , open terrorist rule of the reactionary sector of capital, an economic class, is more correct than others because it is not just political but also economic.
As a matter of fact the whole current world economic triumph of capitalism is totally dependent upon the world historic political viciousness of capitalism in this century, including the Nazi regime and war. I'd say the mortal blow was struck on the Soviet Union by the Nazi attack. It just took the SU a long time to die from it. We would probably be moving toward world socialism today , but for the Nazi war on the SU, the 1919 "NATO" attack on the new SU, the U.S. generated nuclear arms race, the U.S. wars on Korea, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Angola, support for Apartheid, etc. The whole current U.S. economic boom has all the capitalist genocidal politics of this century as a necessary premise. Imperialism is a political economic category. War is politics by violent means. Politics is concentrated economics ( Guess who taught all that ?)
Yes , lets talk about the integral interconnectedness of the political and the economic. One of my favorite subjects.
>As to China's current economic policy, the facts you cite don't
>amount to an argument that the current government in China is not
>remotely admirable. What would be the circumstance of the workers
>you mention if they didn't work for pennies ? Would they be even
>poorer as peasants or in some other status ?
If any government other than China's were involved, you'd be condemning it. Try substituting "Brazil" or "India" for "China," and see if it feels any different.
((((((((((((((
CB: You must be thinking of someone else. I always blame imperialism first. Without U.S. imperialism, Brazil would probably be on its way to socialism. You don't find me condemning Brazil or India.
I will say that there is not the same kind of evidence that the Brazilian or current Indian government is seeking to build socialism in the long term with current policies for survival, as with China. The Chinese Communist Party basically comes right out and says that the current policies are necessary evils to survive short term, but the long term goal is still socialism.
CB