[lbo-talk] negative freedoms, perhaps better termed

[Eric]

>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.