I think that people who wish to regulate the capitalist
system in the way that is proposed on this website need to
answer the standard critique that is offered to this sort of
proposal by leftists.
The proposal assumes against the logic of the capitalist
system itself that economics can be effectively subordinated
to the essentially non-revolutionary politics of the ballot
box. In those rare cases in history where politicians are
elected to power who genuinely wish to curb some of the
worst practices of large corporations (e.g. Allende in
Chile; the Spanish 2nd Republic) the economic interests
organise themselves into an alternative form of politics,
namely the rightwing coup.
The naivety seems to lie in the belief that those who
control the economy are susceptible to purely rational and
humane argumentation and that they can be swayed to bow to
the will of the majority. But history has shown that if the
will of the majority threatens their interests then
'politics as usual' comes to a swift end. The ruling class
rules through consent as far as possible, but if that is not
possible it is still determined to rule. Or does history
provide us with counter-examples?
So, while the Simultaneous Policy inititative is clearly
benevolent in its aims and in its approach, it looks to me
like the creation of sweet illusions.
Tahir
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
