From: Adam Rose <Adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: M-I: the late 40's, 50's and 60's vs 70's , 80's and 90's  was :  RE: "can afford" vs "want to afford"
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:59:26 -0000




---------- I think the real issue in this discussion is what
explains the long boom of the 50's and 60's ?

Is there any objective difference between the
world capitalist system of the late 40's, 50's and
60's on the one hand and the 70's, 80's and
90's on the other ?

I think Hugh is wrong to argue that subjective factors :

"-- above all the Stalinist policies of no revolutions and class
collaboration, and the proven ability of both Stalinists and
Social-Democrats to curb the working class"

explain the long boom. After all, the Stalinists and Reformists
were pretty good at this in the 1930's - yet there was a long
slump then.

I think the long boom had objective economic causes.
This was, essentially, what has been described as the
permanent arms economy - the wartime level of military
spending sustained throughout 20 odd years of "peace".
The contradictions in this set up came through in the end
- countries like Germany and Japan took advantage of
the high level of arms spending and eventually sent the
rate of profit back on its downward path.

There are many alternative marxist, and materialist,
explanations for this long boom. I happen to think this
one is the best. But it is wrong, both in fact and in
theory, to explain a boom by subjective, political
factors, as Hugh does.

The political consequence of the long boom was that for
about 20 years, social revolution in the advanced capitalist
countries was not on the agenda. Trends like soft Stalinist
nationalism in the third world and reformism in the advanced
countries seemed to offer a viable way forward to people acros
 the world in this economic environment. The end of the long
boom, predicted by the theory of the permanent arms economy,
meant that social revolution was back on the agenda - as France
in 1968 proved.

I would repeat my argument that today, ruling classes, because
of the deep, long term, economic crisis of the system, cannot
afford reforms - not simply new reforms, but also past reforms.
This was not true in 1945 and after - they could afford long lasting
reforms then.

If they are forced by working class struggle into granting reforms,
these reforms are temporary gains in a way that for instance the
British National Health Service was not temporary. This has a
political corollary - that if we are to win reforms, we have to use
revolutionary methods, as the French lorry drivers have shown 
us.

FIRST the economic base, THEN the political consequences.
Hugh has departed from this basic marxist method.


Adam

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
Britain.



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---