reform and rev

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 reform and rev
by Rakesh Bhandari
23 January 2002 17:01 UTC  <

>  >Marxism-Leninism has a fully developed theory of colonialism and
>>neo-colonialism.
>
>May be, but you are not doing much to defend it. Why not check out
>how Perlo attempted to defend and develop the theory that you tell us
>you are committed to?
>
>
>Rakesh
>
>^^^^^^^^
>
>CB: Why don't you ? Find your book and read it. I'll explain
>anything to you you don't understand.


I'll have to buy a new copy, but here are a few questions:

How does Perlo explain the turning points in the business cycle in
which you had earlier informed us Marxists have little interest?

What are the limits that Perlo sees to Keynesian fine tuning of the economy?

How does Perlo reach the conclusion that there had been no profit
squeeze in the late 70s due to a reduction in the rate of
exploitation? Then how does Perlo explain that bout of stagflation?

rb

^^^^^^^^^

CB: Yes, actually, I was going to type in some of Perlo's chapter "The Rate of Profit".  The funny thing is Perlo uses both the famous "anti-consumptionist" quote from Vol. II that you stand on and the "ultimate cosuming power of society" quote from Vol. III that shows your view is only part of Marx's view.  So, the funny thing is your list position may end up closer to the Staliinist-Leninist economist analysis than you thought , ha ha.  I don't think you are focused in on what the orthodox Marxist position is in writing.


Rakesh: How does Perlo explain the turning points in the business cycle in
which you had earlier informed us Marxists have little interest?

"Economic Crises and The Business Cycle" is chapter 15 (out of 18 ) in Perlo's book. Similarly to Marx's leaving his direct discussion of crisis to Vol. III.   The placement of the subject tells you something of the importance of it already.

But back to the direct point on this, don't you agree that the Marxist ( Marx's ) position is that there is no taming the business cycle under capitalist relations of production ?  And that therefore, even if you have the perfect explanation of it, nonetheless that explanation cannot be implemented to stop crises ?  So , business cycle theory has to be a secondary concern for Marxists ? Marxists are against capitalism even during the boom phase of the business cycle. Business cycle moderation is a reform struggle, not that Marxists ignore reforms. And what is your reform program again ? I know you said it but one more time.

And on reforms, it is common sense that an "underconsumption" claim is solved by giving the working masses something more to consume with, i.e. money. Isn't it obvious that Marxists' short term or reform solutions must be some version of raising the incomes of workers, not figuring out how to raise the rate of profit of those who profit.