[lbo-talk] negative freedoms, perhaps better termed

Eric rayrena at realtime.net
Sat May 17 16:11:39 PDT 2008



>No less misery? Let me take you on a tour of old Detroit and show
>you what the Reuthers' Treat of Detroit of the early 50s bought the
>unionized workers of Detroit -- huge, gorgeous AFFORDABLE housing
>now abandoned and gutted since the collapse of the Keynesian deal;
>100K (in current $) salaries, rock-solid job security, pensions
>(remember them?) that actually paid, pattern-bargained contracts.
>All gone now, with the post 73 crisis and replacement of
>Keynesianism by neoliberalism.

I'd love to go on a tour of Detroit with you, but it wouldn't mean shit for our argument. It's ridiculous to draw political conclusions from a Sunday drive. Blue-collar auto labor is/was an extremely privileged sector of the "working class" and a very small one; pensions and the like were more common then than now, but even then a minority of workers had them.

If you want to compare U.S. Keynesianism with U.S. neoliberalism over time and their relation to the whole country, what if we look at historic poverty rates? In 1965 -- perhaps the apex of the postwar truce, before the peace started obviously fraying -- 16% American families were poor. In 2000 -- perhaps the apex of neoliberalism, before the dotcom bust and 9/11 and as worldwide resistance to it was becoming obvious -- it was 13%. Obviously there was no great poverty-reduction happening with Keynesianism. The numbers for black Americans are astounding: Poverty levels of 40% in 1965 and 20% in 2000. I'm having a hard time seeing the benefits of Keynesianism if we are talking about the entire United States.


>I've said for a long time that if we had what they have in France
>we'd think the revolution was over and we'd won

Tell it to those silly French, who are always out in the streets protesting because the revolution hasn't come yet.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list