PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [Pen-l] Naomi Klein: Beware of Obama's Chicago School of Economics boys
- To: Progressive Economics <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Naomi Klein: Beware of Obama's Chicago School of Economics boys
- From: ravi <ravi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:56:54 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=platosbeard.org; h=Received:Message-Id:From:Disposition-Notification-To:To:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:X-Mailer:X-Identified-User:DomainKey-Status; b=jlVaEZ5JZ1nqQojMYObaRIMMTSxS7GJblBZmhXSHC6mkHoGic8vUa/RFm/fqhxqz3PPV3Gf1f2NNstWyHewdPcxJthPI+qcuxgEztaY7tt/pls+AS4GlwO+M3CfHqbJ+;
- Domainkey-status: no signature
On Jun 15, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
On Jun 15, 2008, at 2:59 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
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.
I know the environment is all the rage these days but I will ignore it
with your indulgence for a second... as for the rest: alienation etc,
it is the sort of thing that alter-Doug would have dismissed as
sentimentalist claptrap (more on that soon in my comment on your Joel
Kovel interview) ;-). I will offer that if the public truly understood
the implications of the cyclicality of capitalism, they would rebel
against the system a lot more, for it places the issue (bread and
butter) at the centre of their lives. Consequently it seems to me (and
I hope one of you will step forward and stop me from embarrassing
myself), limiting the extremes of the cycles seem to be the primary
liberal programme from Keynes on.
If capitalism has "deep-rooted underlying crisis tendencies" then it
is not possible to "stabilize" it, yes? Pointing to the cyclicality is
an attempt to show that the liberals are wrong -- that the ravages of
the cycles are inevitable and cannot be stabilised and regulated while
still reaping the other "benefits" of capitalism.
On the other hand, alienation, environmental destruction, etc are ably
addressed within the system -- other than for a few effete pomo-
reading urban intellectual types, alienation is at most a nagging
suspicion in a life full of Yankees and Red Sox, American Idol and
Applebees, and guns and church and xenophobia to cling to. And the way
to deal with environmental destruction is for capitalism and the
market to provide "green" products and ways of living. etc.
--ravi
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
- Thread context:
- Re: [Pen-l] Naomi Klein: Beware of Obama's Chicago School of Economics boys, (continued)
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]