Rakesh, please stop calling people ignorant and please stop informing the list about how incorrect Jim D.'s ideas are -- even though he keeps saying that you are mischaracterizing him.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:55:40PM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > >Date sent: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 19:06:39 -0500 > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: [PEN-L:21439] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: > >social democracy > >Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >This whole discussion about social democracy and marxist > >economics disturbs me (disgusts me?) on two levels. First, on the > >practical level, if it weren't for SD I would never have had the chance > >to arrive above the level of the working class. My grand parents > >were miners, my parents were able to become school teachers, > >and I and my wife could become professionals --all on the basis of > >social democratic party politics. ( My grandparents and parents > >were both active in labour/social democratic politcal parties > >politics.) so the kind of sh.. that we get from the rigid marxists is > >not something I have much respect for. My grandparents and > >parents were deeply involved with the Winnipeg General Strike and > >the basic strikes and social strugles for human, racial and political > >rights during the 1930s through the 1960s so this kind of academic > >shit I don't want to hear about. > > who has said anything against strikes? the criticism has not been of > social democratic gains and worker actions; it has been of the > inability of the capitalist system to be reformed or to allow for the > maintainence of the hard won fought gains of the past. by the way, > Jim Devine has himself agreed to that though I find the theoretical > reasoning for his conclusion to be inadequate. > > > > > > >I have done research in Sweden, Britain, Yugoslavia, Australia, and > >eastern Europe (and published in "acceptable" academic (including > >Marxist economic journals such as Monthly Review and Canadian > >Dimension.) > > obviously you wrote in a different manner for those publications than > you write here. > > > > >The level of discussion of soci al democratic > >economics on this list is appalling. > > the discussion here is not of social democratic economics but the > root causes of capitalist crises and whether Keynesian demand > management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist > system. > > Now yes my sophistication may be appalling to someone who may well > know more quite a bit more than me. But you seem to have missed what > the debate is about. > > > > I would not accept it as > >acceptable at a second year university level. > > i have actually received one paper back in my life as not > satsifactory; it was for a Harvard graduate seminar in which I tried > to answer the question of why the US had supplied repressive > technology to various tottering tyrannies. > > > > If we are so ignorant > >of social democratic theory and practice we would be better off not > >to advertise the fact. > > Professor Phillips, I think you are ignorant of the basic schools in > Marxist crisis theory. Jim D is trying to develop the > underconsumption strand into an overinvestment one which makes more > room for fixed capital investment and credit operations. This is a > respectable tradition. In it stand Bauer, Lederer, Sweezy and Devine. > Jim D also wants to add a disproportionality strand. In that strand > stands Lenin (an argument can be made). I am subscribing (and > doubtless not adequately defending) the falling rate/mass of profit > strand. In this tradition stands Grossman, Mattick, Moseley and some > others I have mentioned. > > There are clear political implications to each school of thought. > > And as someone who touts himself as an expert, I think you should not > advertise your obvious ignorance of the most basic questions in > Marxian economic crisis theory. > > Rakesh > > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
