Greetings Economists,
On Dec 14, 2008, at 8:38 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
That's clarifying. A 61-year crisis. Ok.
Doyle;
I agree with Gene's basic analysis that the root of the present crisis
goes back to the end of WWII and the U.S. attack on leftists. But
that doesn't mean a 'crisis' was going on for most people throughout
that period as the present crisis presents itself now. The conditions
for this financial crisis turned into a credit crisis goes back to
1987 and the Greenspan era. If the U.S. had pursued different
directions like dealing with economic bubbles one might not see a
severe crisis now, but some sort of stagnation would have hit then
that the bubbles mitigated for the following decades.
The reason labor matters now is that labor or workers are the force
that can reverse the present conditions. Hence the loss of labor
organizations or the taming of what is left makes the conditions now
worse. This is the bone of contention I have had with Doug. The so-
called catastrophism of the recent past is all about the loss of labor
voice in the process. The basic demand not to go through major crises
when we know capitalism is prone to crises.
Both Doug and Max practiced the 'you don't know when the problem will
hit' school of refrain. Which is true to some extent but also rooted
in a weak labor movement that can't demand more protection. Shorter
work weeks, health care, any of a number of minor reforms of the
system have been completely out of the discussion because we had no
means to bring up a serious discussion. I accept we couldn't know
when the crisis would erupt. What I think is the point though is the
sense a crisis will come is missing from the last 20 years of left
discussion. A sense of stasis and unchanging times mitigated with
discussions about minor points of what can be achieved has had a
dulling effect upon what the debate could have been.
I think a mass movement does change the dialogue at this point. Since
we see something like that in Greece, we can't say the U.S. will come
to the debate yet to represent labor or workers power, but as
intellectual debates go we can anticipate a more robust discussion.
And the end of timorous refrains.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
