Re: reform and rev
by Rakesh Bhandari
24 January 2002 18:09 UTC
CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics,
although I believe it was after the Bolsheviks were dissolved into
the CPSU.
How convenient that you are not familiar with the history of the
Soviet Union that you
Charles and Rakesh, this dialogue is going nowhere. Can you take it
offlist?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 03:47:39PM -0500, Charles Brown wrote:
Re: reform and rev
by Rakesh Bhandari
24 January 2002 18:09 UTC
CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics,
although I
Put is this way, I don't think it is likely that Pashakunis was
murdered because he had some good Marxist theory of jurisprudence,
and Stalin wanted to cover up the good theory and put forth a
bad theory of Marxist jurisprudence. Does that speak to what you
are getting at ?
In part. The
^
CB: Yes, actually, I was going to type in some of Perlo's chapter
The Rate of Profit. The funny thing is Perlo uses both the famous
anti-consumptionist quote from Vol. II that you stand on and the
ultimate cosuming power of society quote from Vol. III that shows
your view is only
reform and rev
by Rakesh Bhandari
CB: I am not familiar with Pashakunis' liquidation specifics,
although I believe it was after the Bolsheviks were dissolved into
the CPSU.
How convenient that you are not familiar with the history of the
Soviet Union that you have defended on email lists
At 22/01/02 00:11 +, I wrote:
At 21/01/02 12:32 -0500, you wrote:
Ian M:
What forms of organizing of the 'managerial
class', let alone the larger working class of which they
are a subset, would it take to have them withdraw consent
to the system?
CB: That's one of the $ 64
on 1/22/02 06:44 AM, Michael Perelman at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Paris Commune caused a flurry of interest in Marx -- especially by
mainstream economists.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:13:37AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
CB: The difference between Marx and others is the Russian,
At 1/21/2002, Rakesh wrote:
The reason why so many Marxists have difficulty in understanding the
progressive thrust of many third world revolutions has been that they only
study Marx, and do not beyond him. Two people who have tried to go beyond
Marx here are Guglielmo Carchedi and Enrique
CB: The difference between Marx and others is the Russian, Chinese
and other socialist revolutions. We are studying Marx because of
the Bolsheviks and the Russian Rev.
Please Charles speak for yourself.
For one thing, I do not think Marx developed a theory of the transfer
of value in and
on 1/22/02 02:35 AM, Charles Brown at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but how are his claims any different from the
predictions of other economists-social forecasters? What is
it about his method of inference etc. that renders his
approach to the futurity of indeterminism and uncertainty
The Paris Commune caused a flurry of interest in Marx -- especially by
mainstream economists.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:13:37AM -0800, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
CB: The difference between Marx and others is the Russian, Chinese
and other socialist revolutions. We are studying Marx because
At 21/01/02 12:32 -0500, you wrote:
Ian M:
What forms of organizing of the 'managerial
class', let alone the larger working class of which they
are a subset, would it take to have them withdraw consent
to the system?
CB: That's one of the $ 64 question, innit ?
The managerial class
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
nations? is this possible?
You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
simple relation between deficits and interest
The argument that deficits cause high interest rates is also
theoretically and empirically questionable. More often the causation
goes the other way--high interest rates mean higher interest payments on
the public debt which cet par mean larger deficits.
Mat, good point indeed.
The impact
On Thursday, January 17, 2002 at 20:30:29 (-0800) Rakesh Bhandari writes:
...
I think govts have in fact already found that running deficits the
size that would be needed to achieve full employment would only yield
retrenchment in private investment; govts thus find that limiting
deficits and
Rakesh asks:
Mat,
(1) what happens if govt deficits in the pursuit of full employment
have arresting effects on private investments; could this happen? why
or why not?
If you are talking about some kind of crowding out then, first, I
think that many of the arguments for crowding out are
In my new book, The Pathology of the U.S. Economy Revisited, I tried to make
the case that this success rested, in part, on prior conditions: a new
capital stock coming out of the Great Depression and World War II, the
destruction of competing economies, and a very favorable debt structure.
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
nations? is this possible?
You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
simple relation between deficits and interest
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
nations? is this possible?
Doug answers:
You're assuming that deficits drive up interest rates. There's no
simple relation between deficits and interest
Michael Perelman writes:In my new book, The Pathology of the U.S. Economy
Revisited, I tried to make the case that this success rested, in part, on
prior conditions: a new capital stock coming out of the Great Depression and
World War II, the destruction of competing economies, and a very
Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:02:21PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote:
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
(2) what happens if in running deficits, the US sucks up global
capital, raises interest rates, and visits catastrophe on poorer
Similar to Brenner in many ways, yes. We both worked on the transition to
capitalism about the same time. Several people pointed out the similarity
between his New Left Review piece and my own work. When I saw it, my first
thought was plagiarism. I asked about it and he explained the pathway
I should have added that my book and his are more similar regarding the backdrop
of the U.S. economy. In the major parts on international competition, I did not
feel the same affinity.
Devine, James wrote:
Michael Perelman writes:In my new book, The Pathology of the U.S. Economy
Revisited, I
Michael wrote:
Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical stuff that
supports this?
Christian
I have to run, but Robert Chirinko and Robert Eisner have done work on
this. bye.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 12:56:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael wrote:
Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of investment.
Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any
Doug Henwood wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Mao.
I rather suspect that capitalism can be depended on periodically to tear
itself apart -- but it can also be depended on to put itself back
together
Yup. As happened in Mao's own country over the last 20
--- Message Received ---
From: Carrol Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:54:53 -0600
Subject: [PEN-L:21620] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Carrol I like your thinking here but you probably will not like my addition to it.
Carrol:
If I had to guess, I
G'day Christian,
Michael wrote:
Also, interest rates are a very, very weak determinant of
investment.
Are you speaking generally? If so, do you know of any good empirical
stuff that supports this?
Reckon pen-l has hit a very rich vein of late - gratitude to all.
Anyway, if memory
PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:54:53 -0600
Subject: [PEN-L:21620] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Carrol I like your thinking here but you probably will not like
my addition to it.
Carrol:
If I had to guess, I would say that the bulk of the support
for the
revolution was not socialist
G'day Running Dog
And Carrol, it is Tienamen. I may be off on my spelling but,
I'm closer, I betcha! Cf. The Tienamen Papers, edited by Andrew
Nathan.
Michael Running Dog Pugliese, Woof, Woof!
It was always rendered Tianenman here at the time.
I still remember those poor young folk
Rakesh:
the discussion here is not of social democratic economics but the
root causes of capitalist crises and whether Keynesian demand
management can solve the underlying problems with the capitalist
system.
^^^
CB: So, who on this list or thread has claimed that Keynesian
demand
I would say that keynesian demand management combined
with a good safety net, ample social insurance, and a new
agency that would rapidly resolve business bankruptcies and
redeploy their assets, would solve the underlying problems of
the capitalist system, if I only had a brain.
The problem here
I would say that keynesian demand management combined
with a good safety net, ample social insurance,
and Max I am with you on the fight to preserve and expand such programmes.
and a new
agency that would rapidly resolve business bankruptcies and
redeploy their assets, would solve the
I support anything that I think will make the lives of working people
and the poor (and the working poor!) better than it is now, including
deficit financed job creation, government spending on various social
programs, living wage, etc. I don't believe that these things can end
the business
mat wrote:
I support anything that I think will make the lives of working people
and the poor (and the working poor!) better than it is now, including
deficit financed job creation, government spending on various social
programs, living wage, etc. I don't believe that these things can end
the
Rakesh keeps reiterating that deficits represent a serious threat. I don't
agree, even though I believe that Keynesian policy runs in the problems in
the long run.
My own preferred version of the contradiction suggests that a different form
of fictitious capital presents a serious barrier. I
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:43 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:21567] Re: reform and rev
Rakesh keeps reiterating that deficits represent a serious
threat. I don't
agree, even though I believe that Keynesian
Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a while, but
that the contradictions would accumulate and then , but then, it has
not yet happened, except in the USSR, China ...
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:15:22PM -0800, Ian Murray wrote:
Hate to be a pain in the neck on this
list moderator michael writes:
Rakesh keeps reiterating that deficits represent a serious threat. I don't
agree, even though I believe that Keynesian policy runs in the problems in
the long run.
I think govts have in fact already found that running deficits the
size that would be needed to
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 8:07 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:21571] Re: Re: Re: reform and rev
Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a
while, but
that the contradictions would accumulate
As Jim D. mentioned, Marx's private predictions were not particularly
accurate -- they included a large dollop of hope. Marxists generally
study Marx for his method, not for his predictions.
Ian Murray wrote:
Ok, but how are his claims any different from the
predictions of other
Michael Perelman wrote:
Ian, Marx posited that capitalism would work that way for a while, but
that the contradictions would accumulate and then , but then, it has
not yet happened, except in the USSR, China ...
If you don't hit it, it won't fall. Mao.
I rather suspect that
Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
I think govts have in fact already found that running deficits the
size that would be needed to achieve full employment would only yield
retrenchment in private investment;
Rakesh, I am not sure how you support the above. Right wingers often
say the same. Does
Regarding what Carrol wrote, Russell Jacoby wrote about how the German
social democrats embraced crisis theory because it offered the comforting
idea that they did not have to do anything -- the economy would fall on
its own.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 10:43:58PM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
michael writes:
I believe that the slaughtering of captial values gives capital a lot
more room to maneuver than a Keynesian solution -- which I regard as a
temporary fix -- although I am not convinced that the ultimate problem
is deficit financing.
I don't think the ultimate problem is
45 matches
Mail list logo
