The following is faithfully taken from Hobsbawm’s “Age of Extremes”:

"Post-war capitalism was unquestionably … a system reformed out of all recognition or, … a ‘new’ version of the old system. What happened was far more than a return of the system from some avoidable interwar ‘errors’ to its ‘normal’ record of ‘both . . . maintaining a high level of employment and . . . enjoying some non-negligible rate of economic growth. Essentially it was a sort of marriage between economic liberalism and social democracy, with substantial borrowings from the USSR, which had pioneered the idea of economic planning. That is why the reaction against it by the THEOLOGICAL FREE-MARKETEERS was to be so impassioned in the 1970’s and 1980’s, when the policies based on this marriage were no longer protected by economic success. Men like the Austrian economist Friedrich von Hayek had never been pragmatists, ready (if reluctant) to be persuaded that economic activities which interfered with laissez-faire worked; though of course they denied, with subtle arguments, that they could work. They were believers in the equation “Free Market = Freedom of the Individual” and consequently condemned any departure from it. … They had stood by the purity of the market in the Great Slump. They continued to condemn the policies which made the Golden Age golden, as the world grew richer and capitalism (plus political liberalism) flourished again on the basis of mixing markets and governments. But between the 1940s and the 1970s nobody listened to such Old Believers.
Nor could we doubt that capitalism was deliberately reformed, largely by the the men who were in a position to do so in the USA and Britain, during the last war years. It is a mistake to suppose that people never learn from history. The inter-war experience, and especially the Great Slump, had been so catastrophic that nobody could possibly dream, as plenty of men in public life had done after the First World War, of returning as soon as possible to the time before the air-raid sirens had begun to sound".

continued when permitted..

..cont. (thought I'd have to wait):

"All the men (women were hardy yet accepted into the first division of public life) who sketched out what they hoped would be the post-war principles of the world economy and the future of the global economic order, had lived through the Great Slump. Some, like Keynes, had been in public life since before 1914. And if the economic memory of the 1930’s was not enough to sharpen their appetite for reforming capitalism, the fatal political risks of not doing so were patent to all who had fought Hitler’s Germany, the child of the Great Slump, and were confronted with the prospect of communism and Soviet power advancing westwards across the ruins of capitalist economies that did not work.
Four things seemed clear to these decision-makers. The inter-war catastrophe, which must on no account be allowed to return, had been due largely to the breakdown of the global trading and financial system and the consequent fragmentation of the world into would-be autarchic national economies or empires. The global system had once been stabalised by the hegemony, or at least the centrality of the British economy and its currency, the pound sterling. Between the wars Britain and sterling were no longer strong enough to carry this load, which could now only be taken over by the USA and the dollar. Third, THE GREAT SLUMP HAD BEEN DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE UNRESTRICTED FREE MARKET. Henceforth the market would have to be supplemented by, or to work within the framework of, public planning and economic management. Finally, for SOCIAL AND POLITICAL REASONS, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO RETURN" (my emphasis).

Sorry, Chris, that I haven't engaged more with your position.
As I've stated, I contend that even our reformed capitalism is unsustainable as well as being predicated on general exploitation

squeers, you could be right, but I try to remain an optimist as best as I can.

Chris
I agree that what is politically possible defines the pragmatic and to me that depends on public opinion. On the other hand, it is also a mistake to think that the truth is whatever the majority believe. If they think rain dances or communism make society fairer and richer, it is not more pragmatic to humour them, but to explain the truth.

Squeers
You declare that my representation of Keynesianism is “nonsense”, and then show that *you yourself and Hobsbawm whom you cite to disprove me*, agree with what I said!

a) “economic depressions arise spontaneously out of unregulated capitalism”

“They had stood by the purity of the market in the Great Slump”

“The inter-war experience, and especially the Great Slump, had been so catastrophic that nobody could possibly dream, as plenty of men in public life had done after the First World War, of returning [to unregulated capitalism]

"And if the economic memory of the 1930’s was not enough to sharpen their appetite for reforming capitalism"

These quotes show that Hobsbawm and you share the Keynesian belief that the Great Depression was caused by capitalism – rather than by government inflating the money supply.

Prove it.

b) “by printing money, governments can make society as a whole “wealthier>

“They continued to condemn the policies which made the Golden Age golden”

(ie Hobsbawm believes government interventionist *policies* – including monetary policy - made the Golden Age golden, i.e. he believes printing money can make society as a whole wealthier)

Third, THE GREAT SLUMP HAD BEEN DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE UNRESTRICTED FREE MARKET. For SOCIAL AND POLITICAL REASONS, MASS UNEMPLOYMENT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO RETURN

[ie Hobsbawm and you believe that capitalism caused the great depression and mass unemployment, and that government policies – by preventing depression – make society as a whole richer].

Thus you
1. have swallowed the Keynesian beliefs whole
2. have the gall to accuse me of “nonsense” when I correctly represent Keynes *and your* beliefs
3. quote your own disproof of your own argument under the confused impression you are disproving mine!

All you’ve done is assume - without proving it - that the Great Depression was caused by unregulated capitalism rather than by government inflating the money supply.

Prove it.

This means you’re going to have to prove that government was *not* controlling the money supply and lowering interest rates leading into, and during the Great Depression.

Go ahead, I’m looking forward to this.

“…capitalism is … predicated on … exploitation”

Prove it.

And please make sure you don’t make the elementary mistake of logic – which you have made in every post so far – of assuming in your premises what is to be proved in your conclusion. If you do, you must buy me a year’s supply of beer.

Also, I’m – fairly - using the term capitalism as Marx defined it, to mean ‘the private ownership of the means of production’. Thus I take, and disprove, my opposition on their own ground.

You and Hobsbawm use the term capitalism – unfairly – to mean anything you don’t like, disregarding or confusing the critical distinction between the means of production that are privately owned or controlled, and those that are publicly owned or controlled.

It is unfair because
a) in failing to make the distinction, you accuse capitalism of faults that derive from government, not private ownership of the means of production; and
b) you even blame capitalism for interventionist policies explicitly intended to override it
c) thus you misrepresent your opposition’s case, and
d) use a double standard to count the resulting confusion in your own favour, whereas it should count against.

Also by this means, your argument is unfalsifiable, thus again failing to meet the basic requirements of logical thought. You need to show the conditions in which your claims could be proved false, as I can and do.

PH,
Anybody who reads what I’ve written or quoted closely, and then reads your representation, would raise their eyebrows, even laugh out loud.
None of the simplistic logic you ascribe to me (or Hobsbawm) is valid, though granted, it is amusing.
<Hobsbawm and you believe that capitalism caused the great depression and mass unemployment, and that government policies – by preventing depression – make society as a whole richer>
I made no such dogmatic assertion (Hobsbawm, btw, says “unregulated” capitalism caused the Great Depression) . I am a sceptic in all things. Have I not merely deferred to Hobsbawm (a renowned historian) on this contentious issue, as nothing I say impresses you? Indeed, even he does not deal in absolutes; towards the end of his long book (one of a trilogy) he says:
“The battle between Keynesians and neo-liberals was neither a purely technical confrontation between professional economists, nor a search for ways of dealing with novel and troubling economic problems. It was a war of incompatible ideologies. Yet economics in both cases rationalized an ideological commitment, an a priori view of human society [what you call “assuming in your premises what is to be proved in your conclusion”]. Neo-liberals distrusted and disliked social-democratic Sweden, a spectacular economic success story of the twentieth century … because it was based on ‘the famed Swedish economic model with its collectivist values of equality and solidarity’. Conversely Mrs Thatcher’s government in Britain was unpopular on the Left, even during its years of economic success, because it was based on a-social, indeed anti-social egoism”.
Admirably even-handed don’t you think?
In my view capitalism (left and right) has demeaned and is demeaning human potential. I believe we are capable of great humanity.
But that is academic, as in our current mercenary state of development we are rapidly proving to be the means of our own destruction--so we’ll probably never know.
Such talk is bound to turn the stomach of any self-respecting (actually self-loathing) neo-liberal, so I’ll leave it at that, satisfied in the knowledge that I’ve said nothing that will give you a moment’s pause.