>Every civilised >economic system IS capitalist. [censored exclamation]! Now I understand better your other posts. We're indeed in need of definitions. Unless this is a joke you're playing on me. You see, we've discussed the beginning of capitalism quite a lot earlier on this list and now you're coming saying that capitalism dates back at least to the bronze age... Unless you have a special definition of civilization, that is! We should create a sublist: CrashList-definitions. >And now that I see you have >grasped this fundamental point you might just understand the >enormity of what an "overthrow" of capitalism would entail. Hmmm... Yeah! Well... Do you side with Tom and Hallyx? Are you also awaiting a mass dieoff? I see no other way. There could be theoretically a kind of transitional anti-natality reformism but I don't see it happening at all. >But what else is worth struggling for? Be explicit please >(and see my other posts). Sorry not to be explicit... everything! Most little bits of freedom are worth fighting for (and this includes improving wages obviously). Organizations are also worth struggling for (cooperatives, cultural centers, etc.). As to types of societies, I think even reformism is worth struggling for. Anything better will do, as long as it doesn't end the struggle (the struggle would have to start in the first place!). If you've more specific questions, I can answer but I belong to no "ism", sorry. >Apart from the attempt to ban Marxists from the list Don't be so paranoid. >and a >rather masturbatory debate on economics which took us >precisely nowhere. As nearly all debates in fact. What's your problem with masturbation, BTW? >The fact is that if an overthrow of capitalism is the only >salvation of this planet - and I don't see any of the >protagonists coming up with an alternative vision - There are alternative visions. Depending on what you call "salvation of the planet" of course. Tom can lecture you on the only way IMO to save it completely. Most people on this list could lecture you on how to save it partially without overthrowing capitalism completely if they cared. >then it >must really entail a return to use values as the basis of >production. There we agree. >Money means wage labour not necesarily >means markets you can have those without wage labour > means capitalism means the state. you can have states without markets and markets without states as to capitalism, well, it depends on your defintion (how many times have I said that?) >Marx was right - you can't >separate these. Please excuse my ignorance. Did he really say that? IMHO all this is a too black&white, Tahir. You really think that it's the end of civilization or capitalism? That's a curious brand of marxism! That sounds more like very radical cultural analysis. Going from supporting totalitarian regimes to that is quite a long way indeed! Julien _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
