¿Que?
19th June 2012, 05:31
I just watched a pretty interesting interview with Paul Krugman on Stephen Colbert. Feel free to respond generally about Krugman but what I'm really interested in is what he said about Ireland and Sweden. Was wondering if there was any truth to it.
See, basically, I often hear radicals say how it doesn't matter who you vote for, the voting system is corrupt and useless or something like that. Particularly in the US, but generally in all bourgeois democracies, voting is not to be relied upon for anything.
But the counter to this argument would point to Obama's minor reforms which at least on the surface, appear to at least make the situation more comfortable for radicals. For example, what about the equal pay bill? What about his voiced opinion on gay marriage? What about his cancelling deportations of some immigrants? Sure, we can all see right through all this. We see it for what it is, ploys to get the working class to vote for him. But doesn't this also change the parameters of the debate, essentially facilitating the work of radicals. Even if it was all lip service, and not a single reform was passed in favor of the left, doesn't it still help the cause that these issues are being talked about.
But those are mostly what they call social issues. Fundamentally, Democrats are just as bad if not worse than Republicans, when taking into account economic issues. But is this really the case? Back to Krugman. Krugman pointed to Ireland as the worst example of unregulated, unadulterated capitalism and austerity. Worker layoffs, low corporate taxes, few regulations, all that. And they're doing pretty shitty. Basically Krugman says if the US elects Romney, then the US will end up like Ireland.
But here's the interesting part. He points to Sweden as a shining example of the successful welfare state. He said something about their economy has been good for 30 years or so (not sure if he actually said growth, but I'd imagine that's what he's talking about). Krugman is as far as I know a Keynisian and I'd imagine that by pointing out Sweden, he's basically using it as evidence for the effectiveness of Keynesian type economic systems. There are two issues here. The first is that Krugman is endorsing Obama, suggesting that the US could be like Sweden. But it's obvious that that would never happen under Obama. Obama is tied closely to corporate interests, this is revealed through various decisions he has made through his first term. However, can't we also assume that Obama wouldn't cause an Ireland situation? To take the health reform issue as an example, isn't some sort of health reform better than none at all? Wouldn't the situation be worse off had McCain won? And even if it was all a ruse, and he had no intention of enacting any meaningful plan, doesn't it at least set the national debate a little more in favor of the left?
The other issue has to do with his actual claims. How are things in Sweden really? What are some factors that might contribute to the situation in Sweden that are not present in the US? But most importantly, why exactly does the Keynesian system fail? The only reasons I can come up with are the various right wing talking points, capital flight, outsourcing, unemployment, etc etc. Are these really true, or are there more appropriate Marxist objections.
Thanks for reading, I look forward to some responses. I hope noone takes this as advocating reformism, I'm just asking question that I don't have the answers to.
EDIT: I was also going to say that not voting, even for liberal reformists, seems kind of as useless if not more than voting. The only exception to this would be if there was some sort of organized boycott to the elections. But other than that, why not vote?
See, basically, I often hear radicals say how it doesn't matter who you vote for, the voting system is corrupt and useless or something like that. Particularly in the US, but generally in all bourgeois democracies, voting is not to be relied upon for anything.
But the counter to this argument would point to Obama's minor reforms which at least on the surface, appear to at least make the situation more comfortable for radicals. For example, what about the equal pay bill? What about his voiced opinion on gay marriage? What about his cancelling deportations of some immigrants? Sure, we can all see right through all this. We see it for what it is, ploys to get the working class to vote for him. But doesn't this also change the parameters of the debate, essentially facilitating the work of radicals. Even if it was all lip service, and not a single reform was passed in favor of the left, doesn't it still help the cause that these issues are being talked about.
But those are mostly what they call social issues. Fundamentally, Democrats are just as bad if not worse than Republicans, when taking into account economic issues. But is this really the case? Back to Krugman. Krugman pointed to Ireland as the worst example of unregulated, unadulterated capitalism and austerity. Worker layoffs, low corporate taxes, few regulations, all that. And they're doing pretty shitty. Basically Krugman says if the US elects Romney, then the US will end up like Ireland.
But here's the interesting part. He points to Sweden as a shining example of the successful welfare state. He said something about their economy has been good for 30 years or so (not sure if he actually said growth, but I'd imagine that's what he's talking about). Krugman is as far as I know a Keynisian and I'd imagine that by pointing out Sweden, he's basically using it as evidence for the effectiveness of Keynesian type economic systems. There are two issues here. The first is that Krugman is endorsing Obama, suggesting that the US could be like Sweden. But it's obvious that that would never happen under Obama. Obama is tied closely to corporate interests, this is revealed through various decisions he has made through his first term. However, can't we also assume that Obama wouldn't cause an Ireland situation? To take the health reform issue as an example, isn't some sort of health reform better than none at all? Wouldn't the situation be worse off had McCain won? And even if it was all a ruse, and he had no intention of enacting any meaningful plan, doesn't it at least set the national debate a little more in favor of the left?
The other issue has to do with his actual claims. How are things in Sweden really? What are some factors that might contribute to the situation in Sweden that are not present in the US? But most importantly, why exactly does the Keynesian system fail? The only reasons I can come up with are the various right wing talking points, capital flight, outsourcing, unemployment, etc etc. Are these really true, or are there more appropriate Marxist objections.
Thanks for reading, I look forward to some responses. I hope noone takes this as advocating reformism, I'm just asking question that I don't have the answers to.
EDIT: I was also going to say that not voting, even for liberal reformists, seems kind of as useless if not more than voting. The only exception to this would be if there was some sort of organized boycott to the elections. But other than that, why not vote?