Georges, [scroll down for an answer to Nestor]
>The crash already occured in Japan
>because of the domestic consumption slowdown...
The crash has already occured in Japan? If you think that, then I think you
haven't seen anything yet. Besides, I don't think that the cause is domestic
consumption slowdown. Consumption is still quite strong and has been
affected by other factors.
>But the most interesting
>point is that by slowing down our consumption, right now, we can provoke a
>destabilisation of the current trends, and this action will create a real
>trouble in the mind of speculators, politically correct analysts and
>several CEO. Provoking an earthquake in the so happy world of capitalistic
>promotors is a way to change their conceited mind and create the correct
>situation to propose the alternative we must work on.
Maybe, but we would have to do way better than the Japanese. Plus, this is the
kind of thiong that people rarely do voluntarily alone. Plus, the consumption
patterns are highly unequal. Plus, the consequences would be ugly because
many would lose their purchasing power before any alternative has a chance
to emerge.
If I don't consume as much as others, it's because overconsumption is boring
and makes me feel bad and stupid.
But yes, even ordinary people in the rich country have enough money to have
some power. What they do with it indeed makes a difference and simply
consuming less is not an effective use of this power. The effective use lies in
choosing wisely what to consume and more importantly in investing or
donating the savings in the right places. But the existence of big organizations
ready to absorb these savings or donations and to produce stuff as well as
the existence of a culture to discipline consumers are prerequisites IMO. This
looks like a more difficult path than the building political parties.
Nestor,
>Of course
>I am not proposing a "super-imperialism" theory. Imperialists are
>always eager to butcher each other. But, except under extreme stress,
>such as it happened in 1914 and in 1939, they will not endanger their
>grip of the rest of the globe. They are united vis � vis the non-
>imperialist planet, in the sense that they need it to remain under
>their hold and control.
My understanding is rather that until 1945 (or until 1989 if you include the USSR
& co. in the implerialist group) the imperialist powers routinely used the
proceeds of colonial exploitation against one another and were willing to aid
anti-imperialists in the territory of an opponent power.
>... and brought the USA to the edge of the abyss in Viet Nam,
What do you mean?
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
