In restating my position here, I will try to offer some replies to your criticism.
Basically I had suggested that the perceived absence of real limits on the growth of the mixed economy was largely due to the ability of US capital to take advantage of a global slump as well as the continued imperialist advantages that derive from the dollar's role as intl reserve currency.
There simply would be no budget surplus and present terms of credit would be much more onerous without said advantages. That is, the US govt debt/GDP ratio would have continued its upward incline ironically in the absence of a global slump. Govt expenditures would have resulted in further deficits as tax income would have been substantially less.
We should be very clear about what level of catastrophic global capital flight and distress exports it has taken to "grow" the American GDP, the equity market and taxable income and thus prevent deterioration in the US fiscal position.
It is a dangerous illusion for the American working class to think that the govt can maintain a high level of effective demand. Any sustained upturn abroad will manifest itself in a resumption of the incline in the American govt debt/GDP ratio that will constrain the use of the fiscal card (moreover, Max never responded to Shaviro's argument against Einser about the real ineffectiveness of deficits in the 80s or Doug's question about how a Keynesian would explain strong growth after 94 fiscal conservatism).
Only due to present and conjunctural imperialsit advantages does it seem as if the govt can enjoy the latitude and the good credit terms to stabilize the economy through fiscal policy. There is not as much room here as appears. The working class must reject this solution both because of the foundations it is built on (world wide misery) and its tenuousness. Practically speaking, not too much time and energy should be spent on getting fiscal liberals into office. The risks of such electoral abstention are easy to underline while the dangers of narrow parliamentarism--Hilferding's legacy--much easier to forget.
>One could argue the other way -- that preoccupation with
>foreign adventures is more of an obstacle to the social
>democratic project than not. For lack of foreign enemies,
>politics would default to a greater focus on domestic issues.
>There would also be more money to deal with them.
I should not have brought up the problem of cruise missle liberais.
To repeat: My criticism is basically about why deficit spending should not be expected to remain an apparently viable and effective means by which to stabilize the economy. The working class will have to find solutions other than the election of friendly fiscal liberals. This is the message you must bring to the Labor Party, Max. Don't sell em snake oil.
>In your own odd way, your position dovetails with the
>third worldist/eco-doom/overproductionist/anti-honkie
>mindset of a number of our colleagues.
It's so nice to be understood.
> In other words,
>it is a politics of anti-politics.
Or in another register refusal of the spectacle.
yours, rakesh