Re: what makes a theory 'social democratic'?

From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Sun Dec 07 2003 - 14:59:35 EST

At 11:42 05/12/2003 -0800, Rakesh wrote:

>>My real question is--- what kind of theory does imply that such an
>>arrangement would work? Or, alternatively stated, specifically what are
>>the necessary conditions/elements in a theory for it not to be social
>>         in solidarity,
>>         michael
>My answer, Michael:
>A theory whose diagnosis of crisis either gives confidence that it will be
>self-correcting or that the state can correct it with interventions that
>remain with the structural parameters of the system, so to speak. See for
>example Mattick Economic Crisis and Crisis Theory. I noticed that there is
>even a web edition now available.
>Yours, Rakesh

Hi Rakesh,
         My question was not directly specifically at you--- as opposed to
an attempt to open up a general discussion that I've tried to stimulate in
various ways. Your answer was not one that I anticipated. Are you saying
(a) that one designates a theory as social-democratic according to its
crisis theory and (b) that a theory is social democratic that says economic
crises are not permanent and contain within them (via the destruction of
capital) self-correcting mechanisms?
         in solidarity,

Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944
Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 12 2003 - 00:00:00 EST