Re: Re: PEN-L equals redistributionist LIBERALS

[Waistline2]

At 06/02/03 01:12 +0000, Alois wrote:
>I look at PEN-L and all I see are a bunch of LIBERALS from >universities whose economic schemes all seem to involve big government >coming in to enact their redistributionist schemes.  I see a lot of >talk about economics, including the discredited Marx.

reply


<Clearly you do not get the impression of much of a shared perspective <with your own views, and perhaps lack the patience to stay. Briefly, <the point is often made, but for the record, some people might
<acknowledge that there were problems (as well as successes) for the
<centralized state economies run in the 20th century by communists who
<honored the name of Marx. However others recognize that Marx remains <as a trenchant critic of capitalism, and did not specifically endorse <those regimes that arose after his death.

<You put your finger on the question of redistribution, which is a <common feature of socialist economic perspectives. However Marx <criticized a distributionist perspective heavily in his "Critique of <the Gotha Programme". The whole argument is important to a Marxist <perspective, and in that some of us could agree with you.>

<C Burford


Comment

I most certainly agree that there are liberals in Universities and many may have redistributionist schemes. There has always been a constant thread in the economic life of America that has demanded that the consuming capacity of the masses - "the people," be raised as the basis for expanding reproduction along side of the argument that the key to economic prosperity is to raise productivity and free up capital for expanded production and distribution.

The words "using big government" to redistribute means several things in my mind, which reduce themselves to "giving people something for nothing" or as the conservatives say giving one money for not working. I believe this is a narrow perspective because money is always transferred to various sections of the economy and the infrastructure or there would be no highway system in America or a huge military infrastructure.

Let us take the so-called Welfare bureaucracy. One must admit that the bureaucracy that organizes, manage and administers welfare consumes more of the money than the infamous Welfare Queen, who allegedly fucks everyone, have babies and contributes nothing to society. Perhaps you are old enough to remember the political battle to abolish food stamps given to our infamous Welfare Queen whose alleged sexual exploits have always escaped me.

Foods Stamps were not abolished because it entails collapsing the agricultural sector of the economy and at the time food chains like A&P or today's "Farmer Jack." The capitalist have always looted the public wealth. My point is that redistributionist plans are as American as apple pie and have nothing to do with the writings of Karl Marx.

I must caution you because I have read the writings of Karl Marx, including his "Critique of the Gotha Program," - at least 50 times over the course of 25 years. It is very obvious that you have not read Marx but rather critiques of Marx by others. Is not George Bush asking for a redistribution of wealth to achieve his programs? The real issue has always been what one thinks is worthy of being redirected.

"Worthy" - the impact of human agency on economic affairs, is a valid economic category.

I desire to dispense with this political equation called "left" and "right" wing because it grew out of the French Revolution and times have changed. Actually America evolved somewhat different than most of the world in its transition from manufacture to industry.

I ask what are you stating and if you make sense then the truth is going to side with you. Facts will also help your case.

Melvin P.