Surely that is now standard macroeconomics as a result of socialists and social democrats in general pushing for it to become standard. And that it was not so up until the 1920s and 1930s in many countries. For example the 'Share Our Wealth Society’ of Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long, who in 1935 was assassinated for his plan to, indeed, share the wealth. Or the capitalist and conservative, The Liberty League, which also attacked the New Deal as a form of socialism, using weak points very similar to those being made now.
So, essentially, plans to redistribute wealth ARE from the left, and its a very good thing too... we would be in a far worse world now if it was not for all these left wing folk pushing for that since the early 19thC. Most of what we like about society is largely the result of previous socialists, unionist and liberals pushing for it. Such a low cost national health system or pensions for those injured in war. And almost all these things were strongly resisted by capitalists.
And this watered down policy of the LDP is a good example of how its very difficult for capitalists to reform capitalism to the extent that is no longer an abusive system. It's like asking school bullies to police other school bullies.
Nowadays the common push in many countries for 'a new form of capitalism' is, i think, a positive sign. At root it shows that more and more people see that capitalism doesnt work well. The problem is a lack of vision and courage to take the action that will actually establish a decent system for all. And the powers against fundamental change are still strong. Still, since the various wishy washy reforms are very unlikely to make much difference we may yet see a majority of people come to think what we really need is to 'reform capitalism completely out of existence', and organise ourselves in a different and better system. Which is possible.
Your comments have reminded me of a strong correlation between GDP and elections in Japan. GDP growth rate has become almost zero once Japan Socialist Party has extinct.
Since i did not say he was there does not seem much point making that comment, and then ignoring the wider, more important, things i have said. But i will reply more to the comment below, and add in a few quotes related to Keynes.
Neither was FDR who started Social Security, or Lyndon Johnson who started Medicare and Medicaid, or even Richard Nixon who expanded the Food Stamp Program, put cost of living increases on Social Security and proposed a minimum income for all Americans.
I did not say any of them was specifically a socialist, did I? But Keynes, Johnson and FDR were all, roughly, speaking 'on the left', in the broadest sense of starting from only slightly left centrists. If they were not then why did the right in their time fight so much against their economic and social policies? And why did the right take the first chance to roll back as much of their plans as possible? If we put them anywhere, it would be somewhere on the left spectrum.
The main point is that a large amount of what is now consider normal in economic and social policies originally came from thinkers and activists and broader social movements on the left. Then those ideas drifted into the mainstream, as was the case by the time of the Nixon. Some were only liberal, some were unionists, some were socialists, some anarchists, etc. We can make a list of 100s of these policies and plans and attitudes and clearly situate the origin on the broad left. For example, that members of parliament get paid (so that not just rich elites could become MP's), which was one of the 6 reforms of the People's Charter of 1838. That seems the most modest and obvious of rules now, yet was considered wildly radical left at the time. To the extent that soldiers were sent in to fire on the protestors when parliament refused to even read their list of reforms.
As to Keynes specifically, here are just a couple of his own views regarding socialism: “The question is whether we are prepared to move out of the nineteenth century laissez-faire into an era of liberal socialism."...and: “How foolish, too, to decry the Left Book Club! It surely is one of the finest and most living movements of our time."...and a multi-author book on Keynes from 1999 (Keynes, Post-Keynesianism and Political Economy: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt) concludes: "“Keynes envisaged and espoused a particular form of socialism” and “it is clear, explicit and unambiguous; he used the term socialism to characterise his own views." So, it seems there is debate as to him being a socialist or not. But, it matters little to the main point i am making.
Surely that is now standard macroeconomics as a result of socialists and social democrats in general pushing for it to become standard. And that it was not so up until the 1920s and 1930s in many countries. For example the 'Share Our Wealth Society’ of Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long, who in 1935 was assassinated for his plan to, indeed, share the wealth. Or the capitalist and conservative, The Liberty League, which also attacked the New Deal as a form of socialism, using weak points very similar to those being made now.
So, essentially, plans to redistribute wealth ARE from the left, and its a very good thing too... we would be in a far worse world now if it was not for all these left wing folk pushing for that since the early 19thC. Most of what we like about society is largely the result of previous socialists, unionist and liberals pushing for it. Such a low cost national health system or pensions for those injured in war. And almost all these things were strongly resisted by capitalists.
And this watered down policy of the LDP is a good example of how its very difficult for capitalists to reform capitalism to the extent that is no longer an abusive system. It's like asking school bullies to police other school bullies.
Nowadays the common push in many countries for 'a new form of capitalism' is, i think, a positive sign. At root it shows that more and more people see that capitalism doesnt work well. The problem is a lack of vision and courage to take the action that will actually establish a decent system for all. And the powers against fundamental change are still strong. Still, since the various wishy washy reforms are very unlikely to make much difference we may yet see a majority of people come to think what we really need is to 'reform capitalism completely out of existence', and organise ourselves in a different and better system. Which is possible.
Your comments have reminded me of a strong correlation between GDP and elections in Japan. GDP growth rate has become almost zero once Japan Socialist Party has extinct.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/Real_GDP_growth_rate_in_Japan_%281956-2008%29.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Socialist_Party#Election_results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(Japan)#Election_results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Socialist_Party#/media/File:The_History_of_Japan_Socialist_Party_-_en.png
Keynes was not a socialist.
Since i did not say he was there does not seem much point making that comment, and then ignoring the wider, more important, things i have said. But i will reply more to the comment below, and add in a few quotes related to Keynes.
Neither was FDR who started Social Security, or Lyndon Johnson who started Medicare and Medicaid, or even Richard Nixon who expanded the Food Stamp Program, put cost of living increases on Social Security and proposed a minimum income for all Americans.
I did not say any of them was specifically a socialist, did I? But Keynes, Johnson and FDR were all, roughly, speaking 'on the left', in the broadest sense of starting from only slightly left centrists. If they were not then why did the right in their time fight so much against their economic and social policies? And why did the right take the first chance to roll back as much of their plans as possible? If we put them anywhere, it would be somewhere on the left spectrum.
The main point is that a large amount of what is now consider normal in economic and social policies originally came from thinkers and activists and broader social movements on the left. Then those ideas drifted into the mainstream, as was the case by the time of the Nixon. Some were only liberal, some were unionists, some were socialists, some anarchists, etc. We can make a list of 100s of these policies and plans and attitudes and clearly situate the origin on the broad left. For example, that members of parliament get paid (so that not just rich elites could become MP's), which was one of the 6 reforms of the People's Charter of 1838. That seems the most modest and obvious of rules now, yet was considered wildly radical left at the time. To the extent that soldiers were sent in to fire on the protestors when parliament refused to even read their list of reforms.
As to Keynes specifically, here are just a couple of his own views regarding socialism: “The question is whether we are prepared to move out of the nineteenth century laissez-faire into an era of liberal socialism."...and: “How foolish, too, to decry the Left Book Club! It surely is one of the finest and most living movements of our time."...and a multi-author book on Keynes from 1999 (Keynes, Post-Keynesianism and Political Economy: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt) concludes: "“Keynes envisaged and espoused a particular form of socialism” and “it is clear, explicit and unambiguous; he used the term socialism to characterise his own views." So, it seems there is debate as to him being a socialist or not. But, it matters little to the main point i am making.