Julien Pierrehumbert wrote:
> >You can not tease apart capitalism from
> >mechanized industrialism.
>
> This is true as far as the past and present are concerned. At least, it is so if you
> don't look too closely at history.
> But why do you know it will be so in the future? Why do you think capitalism will
> *necessarily* fail to adapt? On that important question, all I've heard from marxists
> until now is circular and/or implying that the past will necesarily repeat itself.
You can learn this only by studying for yourself -- at
least you are not going to get a satisfactory reply to
this question on a maillist. I can give you the bare bones,
but I really wouldn't bother trying to convince anyone of
this particular argument who wasn't already convinced
of marxism on other grounds. So this is not an argument
or a defense or an answer to anyone but a bare naked
statement.
Capitalism *must* grow: that's what it *means* to be
capitalist. This is true of individual firms, of particular
capitalist societies, and of capitalism as a worldwide
mode of production.
And that growth will be necessarily destructive (and
self-destructive).
BUT. Each time capitalism destroys itself (as it has
already two or three times) it will be reborn. It
regularly arises from its own ashes, more destructive
each time.
As Mao said, If you don't hit it, it won't fall. It
needs to be replaced by either socialism or a
state of barbarianism from which there will be
no recovery.
Please note. I have not the least interest -- *on
this maillist* -- in defending these propositions.
My only interest in this mail list is to explore
what overlap there may be between those who
accept these propositions and those who do
not. On the basis of the incessant red baiting
I suspect there is no overlap.
Carrol
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
