Nice one Rob. There's nothing like good old common sense - a commodity that
appears to be in short supply on this list.
Have you checked out the Simultaneous Policy website www.simpol.org as an
idea in the direction you have described?
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Schaap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: [CrashList] Re:Will Anyone Take Any Notice???
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
