M-TH: hoaxes and the health of capitalism

[Chris Burford]

Thanks to a passing virus hoax for sparking us back to life. 



At 09:25 10/02/00 +0100, Hugh wrote:



>the whole of his bloody book is a chain of empirical claims. Facts,
>facts, facts! Mr Gradgrind would be very proud of him. Trouble is, it
>explains fuck all about capitalism, what it's doing and where it's heading.


The book certainly is full of a lot of empirical data but that does not
mean it is empiricist. Doug is both coy and provocative at times.
Nevertheless there are a score of references to Marx, with theoretical
implications of an imaginative kind which many dedicated marxist
revolutionaries would overlook.

Could Hugh take up one reference to Marx or one quotation from Marx in
"Wall Street" and illustrate how it is inadequate, or erroneous. No doubt
from his point of view it is, so that should be easy but it is not correct
to say that Doug ignores theory. 

I have just looked up the first reference to Marx again that caught my eye:

"The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive
accumulation. As with the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows
unproductive money with the power of creation and thus turns it into capital."

So reduction of the public debt from this point of view is progressive even
if it is not revolutionary ... or should we think otherwise?


Hugh:
>Except to lull us into thinking that it's never been stronger, of course,
>and that our best political hope is a weaker capitalism with a kinder,
>gentler regime. Maybe Doug should run for president.


Please no, third party attempts within the US two party system are a major
recipe for wasted efforts. But what of a half-way goal of a "weaker
capitalism with a kinder gentler regime"?

Why not? And a weaker capitalism would be less able to resist further
advances... 

So what about restriction of the power of rentier capital and landed
capital, and increased legislation and monitoring to promote social
production controlled by social foresight? Not red-blooded enough for Hugh,
but a step on the way? No?


Chris Burford

London



     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---