[lbo-talk] A Crisis of Neo-liberalism or a Crisis of Captialism?" by Christopher Carrico

[Carrol Cox]

It's a political not an economic issue. Can public order be preserved while
larger numbers of workers are reduced to near subsistence levels, while
'higher' strata lose the margin they have had for many decades. Living
standards have been cut for many ever since the mid-70s and so far (we shall
see how OWS develops) public response has not been dangerous to order. Read
a few of Dickens's novels: why can't the bulk of today's working classes be
returned to something approximate to the working classes reflected in his
novels? There is as yet no real political crisis; hence the economic
"crisis" is not serious yet. The Great Depression failed (even before the
War) to shake capitalism in any serious way. Another two or three Great
Depressions can't be counted on to do any better.

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of CHRISTOPHERR CARRICO
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 8:56 AM
To: marxism at acidification.economics.utah.edu; lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: [lbo-talk] A Crisis of Neo-liberalism or a Crisis of Captialism?"
by Christopher Carrico


>From "A Crisis of Neo-liberalism or a Crisis of Captialism?" by
Christopher Carrico

"Is it possible for the current crisis to be resolved by a return to
more 'moderate' capitalist policies such as those of Keynesianism or
of the welfare state policies pursued by so many advanced industrial
countries from WWII until the 1970s?"

If we believe that current crisis of the economic system is a crisis
of neo-liberalism, one possible way to resolve the crisis would seem
to be a return to economic policies that would address the problem of
under-consumption through jobs stimulus or through the expansion of
the social safety net. Taxes could be raised on corporations;
government could be directly involved in the business of jobs
creation, for instance through investments on building infrastructure;
and social welfare benefits could be expanded, rather than contracted
as is currently proposed by the Republicans.

As far as most American progressives are concerned, such a change
would represent a return to the "normal" functioning of American
capitalism, modeled on the situation that was true in the U.S. during
the post-WWII economic boom. During this time there was strong
economic growth, and this growth was accompanied by improving economic
conditions for all classes.

So why do Republicans so stridently oppose a return to the normalcy of
Keynesianism or of the Welfare State? Why does Capital dedicate so
much money and effort to making sure that taxes are not increased on
the wealthy, that the last remnants of a social safety net are ripped
away, that the last vestiges of organized labor (concentrated in
public sector unions) are destroyed? Is it simply because they are
greedy? Is it simply because they are selfish, or mean-spirited? I
would suggest that the answer is not that simple. I would suggest that
Capital, cannot, as Capital, concede to demands for a return to a
social welfare state.

See full post here:
http://asitoughttobe.com/2011/12/11/insurgent-anthropologies-a-crisis-of-neo
-liberalism-or-a-crisis-of-capitalism/

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk