Doug Henwood wrote: > I might point > out how odd that a Marxist parrots the line of the Hayekians.
as I've said before, a lot of the Hayekian stuff is imported from Marx, though of course usually without paying the tariff (of giving attribution). Marx's business cycle theory[*] has accumulation leading to imbalances being accumulated, so that extending the period of booming accumulation (say via Keynesian macro-policy or bail-outs) leads to the intensified imbalances. The "depression" (post-recession stagnation) can be delayed, but not avoided. But it's possible, in my mind, for certain types of Keynesian macro-policy or bail-outs to get rid of imbalances or at least shift them to a bearable venue. That is, if the taxpayers bear the brunt (for example), it can allow private business to boom. Further, the depression can turn into a big vicious circle (e.g., 1930-33). If that automatically sparked a mass movement of the class conscious proletariat organized in one big party, it might be a good thing. But mostly it means pain and suffering for working-class people. [*] As often interpreted: there is no unique true interpretation. -- Jim Devine / "Nobody told me there'd be days like these / Strange days indeed -- most peculiar, mama." -- JL. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
