G'day Tone,
>Here's the problem, John. All of the marxists on the list are agreed
>on one thing, if nothing else. There is no positive role for
>capitalism to play in avoiding The Crash.
Well, I reckon I'm pretty close to qualifying as a Marxist of sorts, but I'm
not sure this holds water, Tone. Depends what you call 'capitalism'. If
you refer to the exchange relation (in and of itself - in which form it
would of course be a formal abstraction), then I think I agree (insofar as
it hasn't worked and reason is unable to discern any chance of it working in
currently prevailing circumstances). But if you speak of it as it exists in
the world (ie replete with what many of us are pleased to call 'the
superstructure', itself an abstract term which takes many and dynamic forms
across cultures and polities), well, then I'm not so sure.
>If you have a plan that finds a positive role for capitalism to play in
>the future ahead, then let us know. We'd like to hear it.
If we include in the tag 'capitalism' a category which you and I would
consider one of its primary manifestations, the state, then I think there is
some small (and, given current circumstances, 'small' is the word, I think)
chance. I'm speculating shamelessly here, but I am old enough to have lived
in a world where the pressure of concerted social movements was enough to
make states do things which huge slabs of capital would whinge about, but
accept nevertheless. There are reasons to believe such a world ain't coming
back, but nothing's impossible. A collective sense of urgent ecological
crisis (I sense the sense is there, but a combination of a generation of
experienced social impotence - alienation from our institutions, if you like
- and a generalised failure to discern the urgency persists in most of the
'north', combine to keep a muzzle on it);
- or a pronounced growth/coherence of the hitherto poorly articulated and
unconcerted sensibility that's been driving Seattles and the like of late;
- or even the legitimation crisis that might attend a dramatic bear market
and a few million concomitant bankruptcies and retrenchments;
- or significant movements learn to employ IT to integrate globally as
smoothly as capital flows and merges (signs of which are there, after all,
but it'd take unprecedented cultural sensitivity and many a committed
radical would have to abandon her theoretical purity)
might just afford capital the restraints within which it operated between
the war and the early seventies. That wouldn't constitute a solution, but
it'd have the potential to delay the moment (unless, of course, the moment
is already upon us)). Ordinary people have, throughout much of this
century, exercised their collective agency to amazing effect. Whilst that
collective agency would not have surprised ol' Karl, capitalism's capacity
to bend with the winds and come out on the other side would, I think, have
given him pause. Sure, there were very specific historical situations in
train at these times, but who's to say these times of rapid unpredictability
aren't producing something in the way of radical reformism as we speak?
Certainly the scenarios I proffer above are tenable in light of recent
developments, eh?
>Meanwhile, most of the theorizing that goes on, is in regard to how to
>get rid of capitalism so that the world can then reconstruct what's left
>of it to reconstruct.
I reckon it'd not be unMarxist to suggest that a salient problem with the
pursuit of profit is that it is so indirect and clumsy (I wouldn't reject
'perverse and counterproductive', but I'm intent on not being too offensive,
given our polite convocation)) a way to get from social production to social
consequences - 'coz it has to go via private consumption, not social
determination. That ain't all his argument, not even the main argument, but
it seems at least consistent with his argument.
Now, if we follow that through, and posit an ecological crisis of fairly
immediate concern, it might equally be said that getting to ecological fixes
via a traumatic, destructive, capital-intensive, drawn-out, uneven and
unpredictable social revolution (especially from the singularly modest
political conditions that pertain) would not be the shortest route between
two points. That's if you accept my opening paragraphs, natch.
>If you knock marxist theorizing as being not of import to avoiding the
>crash, then you must seem to also believe that capitalist society can be
>reformed into avoiding its current destructiveness. Please tell us
>how so. We're willing to listen.
Well, there are some things that would just have to change. Whether they
*necessarily* entail the overthrow of capitalism is moot. We'd have to get
rid of the mad race to the bottom that is shareholder-value short-termism
for a start. No CEO worth his millions would even thing of investing
capital on anything but marketing, strategic alliances and buy-backs right
now - s/he'd not survive the AGM! It has been otherwise (Remember when
unions actually scared CEOs? When people bought stocks in the hope of
nothing more than the odd dividend? When governments had the bottle to
nationalise TNC-owned plant? It was only thirty years ago, after all). I'm
not looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses, mate. It actually
was so. I'd settle for it as neither a realistic long-term proposition nor
an optimal one, but it might just be all we need to ensure some sort of
civilisation for a generation or two - all we need right now, anyway. I
agree with you that a cancerous structure would remain. But we gotta
prioritise, eh?
I'm sure of none of that, mind, but I gotta hang on to what hope I can find
in a world whose people are so much better than their institutions allow
them to be ...
Cheers,
Rob.
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
