John, >One big problem for capitalism, Julien, will be creating sufficient numbers of >people with enough income to buy all of the stuff spewing out of capitalism >productive forces. This was the problem until now. But production is likely to diminish over the long- term as resources are depleted so the problem will be diminished rather than increased. This won't solve the problem of lack of demand caused by inequality, but I can not see a reason why this problem would be harder to deal with in the future. >More resources are committed to those actions than to impro the conditions >that cause uneven development and distribution, etc., etc. Capitalism lived through this in the past isn't it? There's been wars and stuff. This will of course be different this time because of depletion of resources, but how does this difference makes it harder for capitalism to survive inequalities? I understand that a downturn in oil production as well as other natural resource depletion will cause much suffering and that folks may want to overthrow capitalism as a result. But this has not much to do with a supposed dependence of capitalism on growth. Stan, >Don't think of me as a marxist. Think of the motive >forces that drive capitalism. That's what I was doing. "Marxist" is definitely not an insult for me. >It's nature defies >control. Tolerance of the masses and nature define its limitations, not >the abstract adaptability of it's current cast of bosses. Don't understand what you mean about the current bosses, but as to the limitations, OK. What makes you think those will be deadly? Capitalism tends to grow then there's room for that, but how do you get from there to "it must grow or die"? Julien _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
