Brad DeLong Re-Outing Himself

 I've sorta followed the (near endless) blogging of Economist Brad DeLong for over 18 years.  I have no plan to quit now, there have been good morsels, though I'm ruing a sort of rightward drift since about 2010 I think I've been seeing.

Apparently the rise in leftism, including Communism, in the USA has led him to re-out himself as a strong anti-Communist, as he must have done often before I started following him (though...I once remember him once saying that nationalizing energy would be a good thing, and of course health insurance) and also he is outing himself as what I'd call a Growth-Hegemonist.  He praises (far beyond its merit even in neo-liberal Economists phony hedonic "value" system) the "rising prosperity" (i.e. unsustainable growth) since 1870, without apparently noticing how the planet was getting destroyed at an exponentially increasing rate that persists.  And though the lucky of us on earth are more comfortable (I love my infinitely variable Air Conditioning) and "entertained", we may be more lonely, depressed, and anxious than humans overall in many previous centuries, while likely seeing their planetary civilization go over the abyss following the millions of other species who have done so since 1870.  (Well, those of us who are not lucky enough to be either traders or university professors or others who don't think much about the future.)

Example quotation:

 Hobsbawm’s past political commitments lead him to believe both that (a) Kim Il Sung was a megalomaniac tyrant, and that (b) U.S. intervention to stop his extending his empire by conquest was a backward step for humanity.

But it's been clear for a long time that DeLong takes his information regarding US Enemy countries from the most extreme Imperial Propagandists, such as Timothy Snyder, and completely ignoring the other side.

Synder ascribes death caused by the Red Army in fighting back Nazis as "Deaths caused by Communism."

From the 1917, USSR Communists had only been defending themselves against a western onslaught.  None of their deaths in fighting against Nazis and Imperialism should be counted against Communism.  Therefore the "Deaths caused by Really Existing Communism" at least in Soviet Union should actually be counted as about 10,000 or so deaths caused by Stalin's purges, and that's it.  Meanwhile, 100 M violent deaths caused by Capitalism.  (In Afghanistan, they were defending a progressive regime.  Similar to the situation in Syria.  And now, seeing what we've seen in Ukraine, it's easy to believe there could be better than Western explanations of what happened even in Poland.  It's easy to believe the Color Revolutions didn't just start in the 90's, but right from 1945.)

The utter vicious lying by the west regarding first Communists and now Russia (not Communist, but still a western "Rival" that they feel they must "Defeat") is beginning to expose itself to many people with the OT lies regarding Ukraine and Russia in the conflict the US started in 2014.

Honestly, I even think Hobsbawm is a bit of a Revisionist himself.  See quote from DeLong above.

But back to the whole Glorious Long Century narrative:

DeLong counts as progress made possible by monopolization and financialization the progress which was actually made by possible science and technology and a bit of liberalism.  What was really going on in "the long 20th century" was merely a continuation of the Industrial Revolution.

It could have been much much better WITHOUT the financialization and monopolization.  See for example Edward Bellamy's "Looking Backwards."

What actually happened 1870 onwards was a massive destruction of the ecosystem often for little benefit, massive and endless warmaking, with a few nice things for a few more lucky people than had been the case previously.

People often live longer now, though you will find lots of octegenarians in the 19th century and going back as well.  Currently US lifespans have been decreasing.

But like Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, economists persist with a "value system" that has absolutely nothing to do with our fundamental "wealth," the world itself, which has been massively degraded and now going over a cliff.

The phony hedonic value system believes we can infer value from peoples stated (or operative in limited cases...such as the limited "goods" the market has to offer--love, peace and sustainability not being on the menu) preferences.  But this is impossible for numerous reasons, both fundamental and technical.

For one thing, to really know what a different set of choices would be like, we can't just guess, we'd have to live those lives completely.  And not just one of them, ALL of them.  And over again infinite times because of unknown variables.  And on into the distant future while their actions still have some effect.

And ephemeral choices are little against the backdrop of exploitation, destruction, and war.

Naked Theft was behind much of western affluence and still is.

DeLong can be good, sometimes, on welfare economics, inequality, and things like that, compared with other capitalist economists.  And he's often an interesting read, better when he's not up on his anti-Communist high horse.  But like all social democrats, he's not really challenging the oligarchy, or leading us away from a catastrophic future, but rather right in to it.