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

Mike Hess mhess126 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 12 14:09:08 PST 2011

We could use a better analysis of neoliberalism here. Was neoliberalism a new ideology, or simply a name applied to a later stage of Capitalist dynamics/devolution?

If the working class can organize sufficient power to demand a return to 1950s-era regulation and distribution of wealth, on the next day the struggle begins to preserve those gains. It seems likely that 50 years (or less) down the line, we'd have a political movement very similar to neoliberalism crafting the same kinds of policies.

This is the problem with the reformist approach: you can make meaningful change that improves the living standards of the working class', but you don't get to keep it.

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> [WS:] Can Satan be saved?  We argue that to do so he/she/it would have
> to accept our Lord Jesus Christ, and he/she/it cannot do it without
> ceasing to be Satan.
> Wojtek
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM, CHRISTOPHERR CARRICO
> <ccarrico at temple.edu> wrote:
>> 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
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list