Re: [Pen-l] Naomi Klein: Beware of Obama's Chicago School of Economics boys

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 15, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:

> Doug Henwood wrote:
> > ... I notice that a while back, you and other fans of "unfolding  
> > crisis" were citing bourgeois sources for support. Now that most  
> > bourgeois sources think that the worst of the financial crisis is  
> > probably over, you're not citing bourgeois sources any more, eh?
>
> Doug, let's review this tired debate now:
> a) there is a certain tendency shared by you and other dear friends  
> like Leo and Sam, to poohpooh capitalism's deep-rooted, underlying  
> crisis tendencies;

Capitalism gets in trouble now and then. Financial crises,  
recessions, whatever. But it gets out of them too. It's just part of  
normality. I don't see what the point of emphasizing that cyclicality  
is. If anything, it supports an effort to stabilize the system, not  
transform it. It's the rest of capitalist normality - polarization,  
alienation, environmental destruction - that is the real problem.

> b) the bourgeois press and sharpies like George Soros pick up on  
> the *short-term manifestations* of crisis, which some of others of  
> us like to point out to you when you call us chicken-littles, and  
> which we'll continue to do as the bubbles continue going pop;

I find it interesting to study bubbles, but they do regularly expand  
and pop. So? Edward Chancellor wrote a very fine book on the history  
of speculation, and it's amazing how similar bubbles are across time  
and place. Different instruments, different markets, different  
people, but pretty much the same mass psychology. They belong more to  
the study of human folly than radical politics though.

> c) when the bubbles stop popping for a little while, then guys like  
> Soros - to be sure, an intellectually honest liberal - proclaim the  
> crisis is "over", as you see below he did in December 1998;

He also proclaimed a bear market to be underway, but the S&P 500 had  
another 29% to go. But you mean it wasn't over? Has it been going on  
continuously for the last 10 years? 20 years? 35 years? Was the U.S.  
housing bubble part of the crisis, or just a momentary diversion from  
crisis?

> d) but then we'd reply, underlying problems of overaccumulation and  
> its displacement(s) - including stressed financial markets and  
> accumulation through dispossession - continue, until some sort of  
> more profound resolution (the last being the Depression and World  
> War II) occurs through widespread devalorization and the  
> restructuring of social relations, leading to a new round of  
> accumulation.

Yeah, there was a depression and a world war. Does that mean there  
will be another? Is that some generalized model, or just a one-off?  
Who knows?

> Louis Proyect recently called this argument 'millenarian' but I  
> think it is a reasonable way of looking at the world economy. (A  
> longer version is here: http://www.nu.ac.za/ccs/files/Bond%20SANPAD% 
> 20paper.pdf ) So let's skip the trivial back-and-forth tit-for- 
> tat... and below, tell us something we don't know about the next  
> surface appearance, ok? You watch this much more closely than I do,  
> and although you're probably right that the FT writers aren't as  
> frightened today as they were a month or two ago, I remember how  
> you recently also misread the FT lads on their view of the SA  
> economy (way too rosy). So let's keep their pronouncements in  
> perspective, ok?

Huh? I didn't say anything rosy about the SA economy. E.g., me on  
1/17: "SA isn't experiencing a boom...." Then you told me that the FT  
was saying it was. I didn't buy that and still don't.

Doug


_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l