Comments on: Why do the good always die young? http://theactivist.org/blog/why-do-the-good-always-die-young // Culture. Consciousness. Critical Thought. // Tue, 07 Feb 2012 06:43:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bhaskar Sunkara http://theactivist.org/blog/why-do-the-good-always-die-young/comment-page-1#comment-49513 Bhaskar Sunkara Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:55:52 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1634#comment-49513 When the revolution comes your side will be needed to make the songs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADPtfZuOyR4 When the revolution comes your side will be needed to make the songs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADPtfZuOyR4

]]> By: Adrian Bleifuss Prados http://theactivist.org/blog/why-do-the-good-always-die-young/comment-page-1#comment-49483 Adrian Bleifuss Prados Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:14 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1634#comment-49483 That's a nice application of Marxian science to the Friedman-Schwartz-monetarist counterrevolution in economics, but it's foreign to my tie-dyed Jesus moralistic socialism. That’s a nice application of Marxian science to the Friedman-Schwartz-monetarist counterrevolution in economics, but it’s foreign to my tie-dyed Jesus moralistic socialism.

]]> By: Bhaskar Sunkara http://theactivist.org/blog/why-do-the-good-always-die-young/comment-page-1#comment-49405 Bhaskar Sunkara Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:08:45 +0000 http://theactivist.org/blog/?p=1634#comment-49405 I don't subscribe to the vilification of Milton Friedman, his ideas were exactly what the bourgeoisie and capitalism needed at the time and in a lot of ways he was fundamentally right. I'll quote Henwood: "One reason that Friedman became popular both within his own profession and in the larger world was that there were real economic problems in the 1970s. In the richer countries, Keynesian/welfare-state capitalism was in crisis because of stagflation. According to the economic consensus of the time, weak growth was supposed to mean low inflation—but weak growth coexisted with persistently high inflation throughout the 1970s. Friedman offered an explanation for that: monetary stimulus beyond a certain point results in inflation, not additional growth. Growth was being held back by unions and regulations, which were interfering with the magic self-adjusting powers of the market. The solution was tight money and deregulation. It worked, at least for a while, on its own terms, though at great human cost. But there’s a radical way of expressing the insights of Friedman and the others who came to power and influence in the late 1970s. Capitalism simply cannot live with low unemployment rates. Workers gain confidence, resist the direction of the boss, and wages are forced up. Add to that a welfare state, which cushions workers against the risk of job loss, and things are even worse from the bosses’ point of view. Their plight was evident in the depressed profit rates of the leisure-suit decade. [...] An honest evaluation of this history would have to recognize that the Keynesian model in the northern hemisphere had reached an impasse in the 1970s. Either things had to break in the Friedmanite direction or a more anticapitalist direction. And in the southern hemisphere, import substitution was running into similar problems: rising inflation and low levels of productivity. Many governments borrowed heavily abroad in an attempt to keep things going, laying the groundwork for the debt crisis of the 1980s. Obviously Friedman, Pinochet, and Reagan do not represent the full range of possibilities, but something had to give, and the left worldwide was too weak to win the battle." A bit of an over quote, but Friedman and Schwartz's foresight in predicting the collapse of Keynesianism in the 1960s and creating an influential book that led to a struggle, a reassertion of class rule and the continuance of capitalism is something this class warrior can respect to a degree. Wrong side of history -- I hope... malevolent -- I don't think so. I don’t subscribe to the vilification of Milton Friedman, his ideas were exactly what the bourgeoisie and capitalism needed at the time and in a lot of ways he was fundamentally right.

I’ll quote Henwood:

“One reason that Friedman became popular both within his own profession and in the larger world was that there were real economic problems in the 1970s. In the richer countries, Keynesian/welfare-state capitalism was in crisis because of stagflation. According to the economic consensus of the time, weak growth was supposed to mean low inflation—but weak growth coexisted with persistently high inflation throughout the 1970s. Friedman offered an explanation for that: monetary stimulus beyond a certain point results in inflation, not additional growth. Growth was being held back by unions and regulations, which were interfering with the magic self-adjusting powers of the market. The solution was tight money and deregulation. It worked, at least for a while, on its own terms, though at great human cost.

But there’s a radical way of expressing the insights of Friedman and the others who came to power and influence in the late 1970s. Capitalism simply cannot live with low unemployment rates. Workers gain confidence, resist the direction of the boss, and wages are forced up. Add to that a welfare state, which cushions workers against the risk of job loss, and things are even worse from the bosses’ point of view. Their plight was evident in the depressed profit rates of the leisure-suit decade.

[...]

An honest evaluation of this history would have to recognize that the Keynesian model in the northern hemisphere had reached an impasse in the 1970s. Either things had to break in the Friedmanite direction or a more anticapitalist direction. And in the southern hemisphere, import substitution was running into similar problems: rising inflation and low levels of productivity. Many governments borrowed heavily abroad in an attempt to keep things going, laying the groundwork for the debt crisis of the 1980s. Obviously Friedman, Pinochet, and Reagan do not represent the full range of possibilities, but something had to give, and the left worldwide was too weak to win the battle.”

A bit of an over quote, but Friedman and Schwartz’s foresight in predicting the collapse of Keynesianism in the 1960s and creating an influential book that led to a struggle, a reassertion of class rule and the continuance of capitalism is something this class warrior can respect to a degree. Wrong side of history — I hope… malevolent — I don’t think so.

]]>