[Hope the CR formatting doesn't get too hosed]

With his clown suit off. It is an appropriate warning about the political
direction taken by disillusion with capitalism and "democracy" in E. Europe.
The excerpt below raises the most interesting questions:

"This is why today’s China is so unsettling: capitalism has always seemed
inextricably linked to democracy, and faced with the explosion of capitalism
in the People’s Republic, many analysts still assume that political
democracy will inevitably assert itself."

"But what if this strain of authoritarian capitalism proves itself to be
more efficient, more profitable, than our liberal capitalism? What if
democracy is no longer the necessary and natural accompaniment of economic
development, but its impediment?"

Actually there has never been any "natural" connection between modern
democracy and capitalism. That illusion comes from 19th century Britain,
where it was the capitalist, free trade Liberals, the lineal descendants of
the 18th century Whig Dissident tradition, excluded from the spoils of
Empire on religious grounds, crowded into the purely "Little England"
capitalist industrial enterprises in order to make their way in the world,
who also led the drive for extension of the suffrage. The great
counter-example is none other than the "homeland of democracy", itself, the
United States before the Civil War, where the "democracy" under the
figurehead of Andrew Jackson possessed a distinctly anticapitalist edge -
and not uncoincidentially, in a seemingly curious role reversal, an anti-New
England Yankee edge as well - the cousins of those same English Dissidents.
In those days, to be called a "capitalist" was to have an insult hurled at
one, to be considered someone who fed at the public trough for private gain.


Hence the present case of the PRC is not really mysterious at all, if we
hold to the perspective established after the Russian Revolution that we
still very much live in the transition from capitalism to - well, it used to
be called "socialism", but by any other name it will still be the same rose
in my eyes if we succeed in avoiding a civilizational catastrophe and build
on relatively intact forces of production. In this context the PRC remains a
transitional state and social formation even as the mode of production
becomes more coherently capitalist (of a rather odd developmental type, if
you compare it to the U.S. from the Civil War to the 1920's). It is this
that Putin thinks of when he regrets the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.: that a
Soviet Union intact would have been a far better environment for the
restoration of the capitalist mode of production, than the farcical "Made in
U.S.A." mess he inherited - really, a shift from the incoherent forms of
production, with elements part capitalist, part socialist without either
being dominant, that characterized the U.S.S.R. in the past - no wonder "it
didn't work".

In short, PRC type formations ARE the optimal way forward for the capitalist
mode of production today and in the future - not uncoicidentially the
leading imperialist countries, especially the U.S.A. and Britain, are
trodding down the PRC path in their own way in a kind of "bureaucratic"
state monopoly capitalism with "Anglo characteristics" (as the CCP
leadership would tutor to them), including an evacuation of the real
effectivity of the private property form otherwise misnomered "neoliberal
privitization" - the present "health care" process in the U.S.A. being an
excellent example.  And in the case of the U.S.A. there is a hoary old
tradition of "state intervention" to fall back on, dating back to the very
foundation of the Federal Republic, with its now antediluvian, transitional
(unbeknown to its founders)  project for the creation of a synthetic "state
bourgeoisie" out of the swarming, relatively undifferentiated mass of petit
bourgeois dirt farmers, barter merchants, small proprietor shop
manufacturers, land speculators, swindler - and huckster - settlers of every
stripe - a "sack of potatoes" of truly continental scale.  The lives of
Jackson, Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, and John C. Calhoun (before this
latter shifted to being the mouthpiece of the Slaveocracy in the 1830's)
were the leading avatars of this process, and the Democratic Party they
founded the chosen vehicle.  A state and social formation that turned out to
be transitional _to_ capitalism - the highest, final and 'most perfected' of
all from the early modern epoch that opened with the triumph of the Dutch
Revolt and the English Revolution in the 1640's - somehow managed to survive
into the new transitional epoch.  How these arbitrary juxtaposed strata, as
if suddenly thrown together by an earthquake from sedimentary layers formed
in distinctly different historical conditions, will interact will be very
interesting to watch and, should there be some significant slippage, to
hopefully act in as well.

In this historical context the radical right reaction makes perfect sense,
just as that of classical fascism did at the beginning of the transitional
era. And as Zizek correctly points out, it is hardly limited to Eastern
Europe, as the present cases of Italy, France Britain and of course the
recent hysterical antics here in the U.S. as well as recent stirrings in
parts of Central and South America attest to - they represent an
international danger. But they do seem to have more state sanction in
Eastern Europe - I'd like to try walking past a police station wearing a big
red Che Guevara shirt in Warsaw sometime to test this.

-Matt

Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:37:53 -0500
From: Louis Proyect <[email protected]>
Subject: [Marxism] Zizek on the Berlin Wall
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
       <[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

NY Times, November 9, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
20 Years of Collapse
By SLAVOJ ZIZEK
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to