Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 10:48:36 -0500
From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
Subject: M-TH: Re: The Next Thinker: The Return of Karl Marx (The New


Rakesh Bhandari wrote:

>A basic question for Doug : has the devaluation of capital only been
>effected through new means or has it been prevented altogether for fear of
>its consequences? I get the sense that you are making both arguments in the
>book.

Both I think. Displaced, diluted, delayed - but never allowed to run its
course.

>So would you include in countertendencies to  FROP  the replacement of
>full-scale crises for state-subsidized devaluations of capital?

Yes.

>Your brief discussion of the S&L bailouts seems to suggest such an
>underlying theoretical framework, an upwardly redistributive state
>capitalism which leads to your book's final call to tax the fat boys.

Yes. I was inspired by the program in the Communist Manifesto, in fact.

>Also, couldn't it be argued that high interest rates, fiscal austerity and
>currency devaluations--those hallmarks of sado-monetarism--have led to
>widespread devaluation of private capital and privatisation of state
>enterprises, abetting the centralisation of capital either within trade
>blocs and/or even on a global scale, perhaps so far the most effective
>countertendency to falling profitability. Mary Malloy even suggests that
>this has been the conscious function of conservative fiscal policy in the
>US, but hasn't something like this been operating on a much bigger scale?
>Is there any evidence for or against such a claim?

No question that tight fiscal and monetary policies, combined with dereg,
M&A, and the suspension of antitrust enforcement, have been tremendous
agents of concentration/centralization.

A problem with Malloy's argument is that among the most vigorous proponents
of budget-balancing have been small business interests represented by the
Perot and the Republican right.

Doug




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