Lakshmi Rhone wrote:
> So you agree with Bush--war is the means to growth and prosperity! Couldn't
> resist.
The Cold War Pentagon was very important to maintaining stable
investment during the "Golden Age." It's a critique of capitalism if
the only way it can have sustained prosperity is through war or
war-related activities. Or if social democracy is an alternative, it's
a critique of capitalism to say that only left-wing forces can save
its economy (temporarily).
> Not convinced that social democratic redistribution was the cause of the
> Golden Age.
In the US, you're basically right, since the welfare state was anemic.
It needed a lot of help from the warfare state (see above). A lot of
the US welfare state was joined to the warfare state at the hip, as
with the GI Bill. But in a (relatively) strong-labor social
environment, accumulation pulled up wages which then provided a
domestic market to US capital (which also benefited from its military,
financial, and industrial hegemony after World War 2). This meant that
until the late 1960s, both wages and profits did very well. There was
also the supply-side boost from the Interstate Highway system (the
National Interstate and Defense Highways), the GI Bill, and the like.
> A lot of capacity was wiped out by war, and there was huge pent up demand.
> Accumulation rose phoenix like out of the ashes, and was strong enough to
> accommodate some progressive redistribution which then smoothed over the
> business cycles via automatic stabilizers. But now profitability and
> accumulation are not strong enough to afford social democracy. Obama will not
> realize it. He can't. <
Yes, the destruction of a lot of US capital helped, as did the US
government's paying for retooling and the like. Also important was the
fact that US competitors were in really bad shape after World War 2.
The automatic stabilizers were an automatic accompaniment of the
(anemic) US welfare state, since they are a result of the
progressivity of the Federal income tax and various New Deal and
post-New Deal programs like unemployment insurance.
I agree that Obama isn't going to do anything like social democracy
unless he's forced to do so by popular pressure. Can the US afford
social democracy? Possibly not, though if any country outside of
Euroland can afford it, it would be the US. Likely the next stage of
social democracy will be on a world-wide scale (if it ever happens).
> Your detailed comments on my four points are very helpful, and I think the
> criticism is generally correct. <
I aim to please.
--
Jim Devine
"Those who take the most from the table
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call too ruling difficult
For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
