I am excessively under rush now. but 1) I will come to Dennis and Jim's
comments on the anti-globalization movement. I don't seriously disagree,
except that R Kautsky's position was more like leaning towards the
ultimate freedom of the market (ie.,capitalism unleashing its own
contradictions, so let the market go.), he beleived intervention in
markets by any means would postpone the collapse of capitalism. thus, he
was orthodox. Bernstein fellow was interventionist strictly speaking (ie.,
state cartels faciliating the evolutionary transition to socialism), not
Kautsky. they were differently bourgeois economists, and distorted Marx
... but let's discuss this later.. (time problem..)
2) i will also come to yesterday's article..
Geras' book on this issue is great _the legacy of Rosa Luxemburg_. he
clearly sets out the polemics among the trio (Lenin-Trot-Rosa), and their
critique of renegade Kaustky.
i have to go.
Mine
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000 07:27:23 -0700
From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:18376] Re: Re: on the "anti-globalization" movement (fwd)
At 02:12 AM 04/27/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> > UNDERSTANDING THE BATTLES OF SEATTLE AND WASHINGTON
> > By Dick Platkin and Chuck O'Connell*
>
> > anti-globalization groups. They are (unknowingly) recycling Kautsky's
> > argument when they claim that the WTO, IMF, and World Bank represent a new
> > capitalist consensus to override national sovereignty and democracy
> when they
> > impinge upon profitability.
this isn't Kautsky's argument (is it?). Rather, didn't K argue that a
world government (seen in embryo, perhaps, in the form of the WTO, IMF, &
WB, but especially the US/NATO which stands behind them) would solve the
problems of the world-wide anarchy of production, dealing with world
disproportionalities and preventing crises? It seems to me one could
believe that these organizations could "override national sovereignty and
democracy when they impinge upon profitability" without believing that
they could abolish crises.
BTW, it's really too bad that the debates amongst Kautsky, Lenin,
Luxemburg, Bukharin, et al weren't thrashed out on a theoretical level
instead of getting into the sectarian biz about "renegade K" and the like.
(I know that Lenin started out as a follower of K and that his later verbal
attacks on him occurred because Lenin was a mite peeved by K's weak
position on WW1 and his later attacks on the revolution. But the whole
set-to was the beginning of a process that shut down serious theoretical
debate for a generation.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine
