Yes, I agree-- it's all historical, but the reference Zizek makes is specifically to China. I agree also that China is not a successor state to the US in the configuration of advanced capitalism.
It, China's "new model capitalism," is based on the rather old cheap labor model, more representative of capitalism in the 19th century, before the massive application of machine power to production in the 2nd half of that century. And agriculture is conducted at a level of productivity far below that of capitalism. Doesn't mean every bourgeois doesn't drool over the prospects of having a police state, but it does mean, IMO, China is facing tremendous social upheaval and class struggle. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Russo" <[email protected]> To: "David Schanoes" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:50 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism] Zizek on the Berlin Wall >I certainly don't buy China or any other particular state as >"paradigmatic", > in fact don't buy the concept itself. By that same token also don't buy > the > PRC as a "successor state" to U.S. imperialist hegemony. ________________________________________________ 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
