Liquidation Sale! (was Replacement costs)
Dace
edace at flinthills.com
Tue Feb 29 18:08:07 PST 2000
>Ted wrote:
>
>>If we were to "green" the economy in various ways, such as subsidizing
>>organic agriculture, banning cars in downtowns in favor of public
>>transportation, and replacing destructive products with
>>environmentally-friendly alternatives, etc., the result would be new
>>opportunities for economic growth and long-term lowering of the costs of
>>production. But since this would occur at the expense of short-term
profit,
>>the impetus has to come from the state. Unfortunately, "In liberal
>>democratic states the normal political logic of pluralism and compromise
>>prevents the development of overall environmental, urban, and social
>>planning."
>
>Ted, this makes it seem as if you are arguing for a more authoritarian,
>centralized state (a Leninist dictatorship of the proletariat?) freed from
>democratic pressure as it takes form in liberalism? Ah, that outstanding
>problem of the relationship between democracy and communism. Are Marx's and
>Lenin's ideas the same (Hal Draper, Paul Mattick, Richard Hunt, Paul
>Thomas, John Ehrenberg all give different answers)?
>
>Perhaps a Samuel Brittain would argue as well that only an authoritarian
>state could embark safely on a Keynesian depression program because it will
>remain insulated from pressure to continue to use such instrumentalities,
>under the pressure of interest groups, after the crisis has subsided? For
>example, Schumpeter did not deny the effectiveness of Keynesian programs
>but argued that it would be dangerous in the long term to widen the state's
>capacity given the pressures that interest groups would then continuously
>exert on it in pluralist democracy (no doubt this is one of the reasons he
>was attracted by the Nazis).
>
>But it seems that a certain kind of authoritarianism is understood as
>necessary to overcome crisis, whether of an ecological or economic type?
>
>At any rate, the advocacy of what kind of state form is implicit in this
>argument?
>
>
>Yours, Rakesh
>
>
>
King Rakesh. Has a nice ring to it.
More information about the lbo-talk
mailing list