Mark, excuse me for replying to our friend here in some
detail - you do list manage quite tightly, but I'm sure you
will agree that this is very much connected to the main
plot. I will snip.
>>> "Julien Pierrehumbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/07 2:24
PM >>>
>Every civilised
>economic system IS capitalist.
now you're coming saying that capitalism dates back at least
to the
bronze age...
No, capitalism developed some 300-400 years ago and now the
whole ("civilised") world is capitalist. The main point here
is to see the solution to the global crisis in terms of a
movement towards the future, via a radical critique of what
is. See my objections to your alternatives below.
>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.
I'm not especially optimistic in the shorter term - that's
why the demand for a "solution" by next year just sounds
puerile to me. If anyone promises this to you, s/he's a
charlatan. The only thing that will save something of
civilisation from the meltdown of capitalism is a large
scale international movement that has common understanding
of the potential for creating what has been called the
material human community. I'm clear that this planetary
community cannot be based on commodity production. Agree or
not?
>But what else is worth struggling for? Be explicit please
>(and see my other posts).
I think even reformism is worth struggling for.
Sure, but which reforms are going to save this planet, the
human race and civilisation? See you argue carefully now!
>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 -
Most people on this list could lecture you on how to save
it
partially without overthrowing capitalism completely if they
cared.
"If they cared"? But what else is this list about? And what
does saving it partially mean? This is not a definition I'm
asking for, but a genuine explanation. Enlighten me please.
I want to give up being a marxist and any convincing
explanations here will do it for me.
>then it
>must really entail a return to use values as the basis of
>production.
There we agree.
But how can you agree and then still argue for money? What
is money for other than commodity production (which means
production for exchange, remember)
>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?)
You can have all of these things separated in a purely ideal
and conceptual universe, but historically your separations
are nonsense. States as we know them came into being to
regulate class conflicts, to protect markets, private
property, trade routes, etc. Why else? As for capitalism, it
is just the logical extension of commodity production
throughout society, for which development you need money and
wage labour.
>Marx was right - you can't
>separate these.
Please excuse my ignorance. Did he really say that?
Yep, take a look. If you had done so before, you would have
known that I was arguing solidly within the marxism of Karl
Marx (not some undergrad lecturer's attempted summary
thereof) and then the definitions would not have been a
problem. What your post has demonstrated is how strange
marxism seems when you first encounter it.
Tahir
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
