raghu wrote:
> I was referring to
> the comments of Eugene Coyle, the Sandwichman and to part of Jim
> Devine's messages that suggested that the political power of the
> financiers and the capitalist interests was a big factor why
> "Keynesian" state action to counteract capitalist crises was not in
> general possible.
as I said before, that political influence can be counteracted. But
the power of _some_ fraction or another of the capitalist class is
based in the capitalist control over the economy.[*] In the crunch,
either the social-democratic/Keynesian/New Deal "compromise" will
jettisoned or capitalism itself has to go. Even in non-crunch times,
individual capitalists who benefit from the compromise are born
opportunists ("free riders") who will take advantage of the system
(seeking loopholes, finding cheap supplies of labor-power, etc.) and
by doing so, undermine it, and end it. Both of those stories describe
elements of the transition from the compromise (or "accord") period of
the 1960s to the present neoliberal dystopia.
[*] Duménil and Lévy argue that the management of big corporations was
what I would call the dominant fraction during the "compromise" years
after WW2. Then the financiers too over.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
