This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--part0_918626843_boundary
Ken,
I think your comments are well taken on one level. It is true that in one
sense, in one context, the Profit<---->Power imperatives and dynamics of
capitalism do indeed lead to risktaking andn investments that lead to cures
for various illnesses, jobs, incomes etc etc; but those same imperatives
produce dynamics of new diseases for which new cures are needed, general
commodification of people and sacreds, meagre and dehamizing jobs and
exploitative income levels.
New technologies however sophisticated and with the potential to do good, if
held by a few for the benefit of the few, or if used for evil, represent not
progress but an even more threatening potential for descent total destruction.
So when taken in a wider context, what appears to be "progressive" in the
abstract may well be dangerous and destructive when taken in historical
context or in the context of how ripe that capitalism is today relative to the
capitalism of the time of Marx; part of Marx's praise for capitalism was
relative to the forms of bondage and exploitation of previous systems. But
Marx also clearly noted that for each blessing capitalism brings, it brings at
least one, often more curse and that the "blessing" is often a mask and
instrument for the curse.
So when we get to net score, I have to see the negatives outweighing--and even
choking off new--positives or possibilities for positives. No doubt capitalism
does bring some wonders relative to previous systems, but if the power grids
go or during extreme natural disasters for example, the "primitives" survive
as it is life as usual, and the "civilized" ones freak out, implode and turn
into some version of Mad Max. That is why Ghandi Ji when asked "What do you
think about Western Civilization" he answered "It sounds like a good idea."
Jim Craven
In a message dated 2/9/99 9:24:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Subj: [PEN-L:3145] Re: Nigeria
Date: 2/9/99 9:24:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Hanly)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't believe that capitalism has progressive aspects? I thought you
were a
Marxist?
How can you hold both that capitalism has no progressive aspects and that you
are a Marxist at one and the same time? THere are numerous passages in Marx
filled with praises of capitalism's progressive features, of the manner in
which
it releases the productive forces of nature and frees people from feudal
bonds.
.
CHeers , Ken Hanly
Louis Proyect wrote:
> Doug:
> >Seeing the world in black and white makes writing polemic a lot easier,
but
> >it's not very helpful. I was reacting to your preposterous claim that
> >Nigeria has seen "plenty of investment," which is why the phrase was in
> >quotes. Nigeria has not had "plenty of investment," it's had too little
and
> >of a very distorted sort. Here's the full exchange. I especially like the
> >way you forgot to quote the "It's been plundered" part.
>
> Doug, we have political differences that no amount of quoting in context or
> out of context will change. You believe that capitalism has some
> progressive aspects, while I believe that it has none. That is what the
> debate is about.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35])
Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu (galaxy.CSUChico.EDU [132.241.82.21])
by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:24:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp1.mts.net (smtp1.mts.net [205.200.16.74])
Received: from mb.sympatico.ca (brndas06-p88.mts.net [205.200.58.246])
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3145] Re: Nigeria
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.08 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN >>
--part0_918626843_boundary
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:24:32 -0500 (EST)
Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:26:28 -0600
From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:3145] Re: Nigeria
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You don't believe that capitalism has progressive aspects? I thought you were
a
Marxist?
How can you hold both that capitalism has no progressive aspects and that you
are a Marxist at one and the same time? THere are numerous passages in Marx
filled with praises of capitalism's progressive features, of the manner in
which
it releases the productive forces of nature and frees people from feudal
bonds.
..
CHeers , Ken Hanly
Louis Proyect wrote:
> Doug:
> >Seeing the world in black and white makes writing polemic a lot easier, but
> >it's not very helpful. I was reacting to your preposterous claim that
> >Nigeria has seen "plenty of investment," which is why the phrase was in
> >quotes. Nigeria has not had "plenty of investment," it's had too little and
> >of a very distorted sort. Here's the full exchange. I especially like the
> >way you forgot to quote the "It's been plundered" part.
>
> Doug, we have political differences that no amount of quoting in context or
> out of context will change. You believe that capitalism has some
> progressive aspects, while I believe that it has none. That is what the
> debate is about.
>
> Louis Proyect
>
> (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
--part0_918626843_boundary--
