>I don't consider myself a social democrat, but I agree with Jim -- if I >understand him correctly. SD is good for the capitalists. That does not >make it the Valhalla for others. It is merely a social form that reduces >conflict and thus improves efficiency.
michael, social forms that domesticate the class struggle are obviously to the advantage of the capitalist class. whether the capitalist class can afford to do so by allowing wages to increase to maintain or lessen the rate of exploitation and by allowing the govt to issue debt (fictitious capital) for the purposes of full employment policy--and this is what I understand by social democracy--is another question. Jim D's demand side theory leads him (and I quoted him here) to the belief that such social democracy would not only be in the interests of the working class but also the capitalist class as well! For Jim D it is presumably just a matter of the working class imposing on the capitalist class a social democratic political regime from which unbeknowst to itself it would benefit as well. Marxian theory suggests that class contradictions cannot be so attenuated by a political regime that keeps private property and wage labor in tact. Marxian theory may be wrong! Revisionism may be correct. And it would be a much more pleasant world indeed if this were so. I wish Jim D were correct! rakesh
