me: > > isn't [Klein's] thesis about _changes_ in the degree of cronyism rather than > > the current level of it? further, isn't her comparison with the > > less-cronyish 1960s or 1930s rather than with the early 1900s? to > > dismiss the current cronyish trend _tout court_ would be like saying > > that the current trend toward globalization is irrelevant since the > > economy has always been globalized.
Doug: > Yeah it would be kind of like that, because it's true. Or, more > exactly, the desire to identify a historical break often effaces > historical continuities. Using a word like "globalization" and > pretending it started in the 1980s or 1990s effaces the importance of > imperialism to the development of capitalism, and oversentimentalizes > the 1950s and 1960s. There are some very clear breaks in history, such as 1914-19, 1929-33, and 1945. They don't correspond exactly to breaks in historical trends, but they are relevant. The 19th century was largely one of globalization, though there was an increasing move toward a nation-based model of accumulation (as Germany and the US rose to compete with the UK). The period from the late 19th century to 1929-33 was a period of fitful de-globalization, culminating with the trade wars of the early 1930s. The latter started a reaction, as the policy elites moved toward favoring globalization (except in Germany, Japan). This reaction culminated with the US victory in the capitalist part of the world in 1945. That started the new and big globalization trend that we're still in. All of these are phases in the more general phenomenon of (capitalist) imperialism. I can't speak for Klein, but I don't over-sentimentalize the 1950s or 1960s at all. But it was a period of nation-centered capitalism, at least in the US and several more social-democratic oriented countries. This didn't change the basic "laws of motion" of capitalism, but rather changed the concrete (or specific) way in which they were manifested. Back then, workers had more power to raise wages than they do now. Not all of them, of course, but wages on average did pretty well from the 1950s to the 1970s. In a nation-centered model of accumulation, that helped to build the domestic market. Nowadays, in contrast, wages are only seen as a cost. With capital mobility & (the newer trend of) globalization progressing (largely in the background), the nation-centered model of capitalism slowly went away, culminating in the stagflation crises of the 1970s. > Klein exhibits a lot of nostalgia for the > Keynesianism and import substitution of the Golden Age, and also > describes the Pinochet years as a turn against the leftist movements > of that same Golden Age. If that age was so golden, why were there > leftists, armed and unarmed, fighting for the abolition of capitalism? It was "Golden" only for the core in the imperialist system and largely only for the whites in that core. > As for the 1960s, didn't LBJ have something to do with Brown & Root? > Oh yeah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root>: I think that Klein is arguing that cronyism is playing a _bigger role_ now than back then, because of privatization of a lot of government functions. Cronyism has been around for a long time, but since Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. applied neoliberal rules to the DOD, its played a bigger role. > Oh, so maybe there was some cronyism in the 1930s too! I don't think anyone denies the role of cronyism in the 1930s. In any event, no matter how important or unimportant cronyism is now, it's nice to attack the neoliberals for intensifying crony capitalism. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
