The owner controlled US system was saved in 1940 by war production to take up the over
productions.  The accumulated need for goods fueled the boom after the war til early 70's with a war or two in between to help.  Present war production gives no boom but it
staves off more or less a depression, giving only recurrent serious
recessions.
Of course the same result could be gotten from public works, and much less
capital intensive, ei.e. better for workers.
But war and empire are Bobsy twins , not to be separated.
>
wcm> On Wed, 18 Jun 1997, Tresy Kilbourne wrote:
> >
> > The responses to this all hit an obvious point, the role of demand
> > formation, which in itself suggests a "naive" explanation of its own.
> > Maybe this is also naive, but it seems to me that leftists might bear in
> > mind that the circulation of commodities is what it's all about in the
> > modern economy. So whether it's entirely demand-driven or aided by
> > carefully targeted  advertising, the fact remains that the system that
> > keeps us alive depends on it. Axe the military-industrial complex? Fine.
> > What do you tell the tens of thousands of workers (and neighbors whose
> > jobs depend on the patronage of those workers, and their neighbors in
> > turn) who will be put out of work as a result? Try to imagine how many
> > canoes Grumman would have to build to equal the stimulative effect of one
> > B1 bomber. End old-growth logging? Great. How do you convince the
> > communities that depend on old-growth logging that this is in their
> > short-term interest (remembering Keynes' famous line, "in the long run,
> > we're all dead")? And so on.
> >
> > The "sustainability" mantra only gets one so far, and that's not very.
> > The intrinsic logic of the current system is one of inexorable expansion,
> > and so far, alternatives to that system have either a) supported
> > primitive economies that no one other than the Unabomer would want to
> > live in or b) been command economies with their well-documented failures.
> > It's a pretty frightening proposition, that we are on an accelerating bus
> > driven by a madman, but I don't see how we can get off it. Any ideas?
> >
> >>
> Indeed, it is a frightening prospect. As Tresy has pointed out, most of us
> in the prosperous world are dependent on this mad system for our short
> term survival--and no one, seemingly, has a blueprint for how to dismantle
> the behemoth other than to say "stop it"!
>
> I don't have one, that's for sure. But by the same token, neither do the
> people who are nominally at the helm--all they are responding to is
> short-term stockholder interests (primarily) with, obviously, no rational
> thought given to longer-term social problems.
>
> Perhaps we can think of this as a great game of chess. You can't expect a
> game to follow a blueprint--there are simply too many imponderables and
> contingent factors. Except for the endgame, no player can foresee the ultimate
> consequences flowing from a single move; instead, they make specific,
> individual moves that seem to advance general objectives, with the hope
> that if they do these consistently, and make an effort to avoid unintended
> negative consequences, the outcome will be favorable.
>
> So the first question, perhaps, is what are the general objectives? A few
> that most on this list might agree to are:
>
> 1. Reduce the power of private capital.
> 2. Increase popular participation in decision making.
> 3. Reduce the extremes of economic inequality.
> 4. Promote environmental policies that are in the long-term interest of
> the human species.
>
>
> Now, assuming that these are acceptable, it's pretty easy to think of
> specific measures that would advance these general interests. A good
> beginning can be found in  Chapter 24 of David Korten's wonderful book
> "When Corporations Rule the World" (Kumarian Press). Just in respect to #1
> above, they include things like:
>
> -prohibitive taxation of profits from financial speculation
> -exclusion of advertising from public venues (schools, airwaves, etc.)
> -a ban on corporate lobbying activity
> -taxing "non-profits" whose boards are more than 50% comprised of
> corporate officers, on the grounds that these are de facto front groups
>
>
> etc. etc. The point is, it's really pretty easy to see, and take, steps
> that move us toward our basic objectives. It only becomes overwhelming if
> we think in terms of creating utopias or in absolutes. Eliminating private
> ownership of capital might be desirable, but it's a difficult thing to
> achieve right away in one fell swoop. It's much easier to devise ways to
> limit the power of such capital, and once this is done perhaps the next
> steps will be obvious.
>
> The runaway  bus metaphor is apt, I admit, but taken too seriously
> contributes to a larger sense of hopelessness that quickly becomes
> self-fulfilling. One thing history would seem to teach (with a
> nod to Marx) is that given economic systems DO change, as a result of
> their own internal flaws and contradictions. It was undoubtedly
> difficult to envision a southern US economy without slavery, when most
> white folks in the south made their living, one way or another, from that
> system. This didn't stop the abolitionists, nor should it have. They
> continued pursuing specific steps to advance their larger objectives, and
> ultimately had some positive influence.
>