******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
I can't say that I've read much of Michael Roberts' non-blog work (or that of the other new prophets of "the tendency" like Carchedi and Kliman), but I have to agree with the old RPE critique (explicated best in Howard Sherman's work) of their intellectual forefathers that "the tendency" is a technologically determinant view of capitalism that leaves little to no room for the political. Then again, having read some of his blog posts on the situation in Greece and Ukraine, Roberts does seem to think that there are political solutions to the crises in those states that do in fact sound Keynesian. The question that is always in the back of my mind when I read those posts is why any revolutionary movement should bother to do those things if they will inevitably hit up against the immoveable object that is "the tendency"...especially if we all acknowledge that socialism in one state is impossible. > 29 сент. 2015 г., в 19:39, MM via Marxism <[email protected]> > написал(а): > > ******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** > #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. > #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. > ***************************************************************** > >> On 29 Sep 2015, at 2:51 AM, Gary MacLennan via Marxism >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It seems to me that Roberts tends to dismiss the political and place all >> his bets on the economic structure. Thus he has talked of the need for >> capital to go through a crash to restore profitability. But that will have >> to be set within the political. > > Roberts doesn’t write much explicitly about political engagement, but I don’t > think this is at all accurate as a reading of his orientation. I don’t have > the reference handy, but in at least one of his video lectures he makes very > clear that when he speaks of the kind of correction that capital(ism) > requires in order to re-establish profitability, he isn’t for a moment > advocating that as an ideal solution for workers - rather that it is simply, > unavoidably, what capitalism as a system requires in order to perpetuate > itself, and Keynesian solutions don’t resolve the underlying tendency towards > crisis. He ends the talk by saying something to the effect, “… and that’s > what capitalism will have to do in order to restore profitability again next > time, unless the working class puts a stop to it and builds a different > system.” (Very rough paraphrase from memory.) It’s easy to wish that he would > provide more political recommendations, but I think that simply isn’t how he > sees his role or his strengths. > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/shalva.eliava%40outlook.com _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
