[lbo-talk] a different view of U.S. mfg

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Tue Jan 22 14:20:45 PST 2008


On Jan 22, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Patrick Bond wrote:


> Bourgeois statistics again, Doug. They say nothing about partial
> devalorisation, i.e., capacity that could (and sometimes is) brought
> back into production when circumstances require it. That was also
> Arrighi's mistake in the NLR crit of Brenner.
>
> Why am I not getting through on this basic point, old friend?

Because these stats are the best evidence we have. Otherwise you can just say whatever you want to, with no reality discipline at all.

I've long been skeptical of the argument that a small band of radical intellectuals has a better understanding of how capitalism works than the capitalists do. The social dems say if only Wal-Mart would pay higher wages, it'd reduce turnover and make more money. No it won't, and Wal-Mart understands that. The catastrophist Marxists say the bourgeois statisticians don't know how to measure their own system, and they've been operating under a profound misperception for decades (or centuries, if you prefer). I don't believe that either.


>>> Call it a 'basic needs ISI' plus manufacturing
>>> balancing, as opposed to traditional Third World ISI oriented to
>>> replacing luxury-good imports for a small fraction of the consuming
>>> population (i.e., the South African or Rhodesian models).
>>>
>>
>> So we go from Argentina, to the Rust Belt, to Venezuela, to Rhodesia?
>>
>>
> Don't be a clown, Doug. As anyone can read above, I say "as opposed
> to... Rhodesia".

Clown? Having a discussion with you is like talking to someone with a bad case of ADD. You can't stay on one topic for longer than a sentence.

Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list