>Let's start with my initial assertion: capitalism is very adaptable,
>able to survive hard times. This does not mean that capitalism
>doesn't drive itself into disgusting crises every few decades. It
>does. In fact, I see a serious realization crisis in the near future
>of U.S. -- and likely, world -- capitalism. Environmental crises are
>happening and will intensify. Things are going to get worse on a lot
>of fronts, and are already getting worse for many people (e.g.,
>Africa). It's even likely that the price of fossil fuels (before-tax
>real petrol prices, etc.) will rise dramatically in the future, even
>though the current high only looks high because it's following a
>20-year down-trend, since capitalism tends to go to extremes. The
>discussion above seems to be an extrapolation based on this notion.
>
>But, as in the past, crises don't automatically lead to capitalism's
>demise. We might see a move toward fascism, but the system's elites
>and shock troops will fight hard to keep their system going. It's
>not over 'til it's over, when there's a sufficient social force to
>replace capitalism.
>
>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Right you are. The way they fight Nader (!) should make us all
shudder; imagine how they will fight _us_ in the event of a real
crisis.
Were we in a better position (= with "a sufficient social force to
replace capitalism"), discussion of a potential crisis -- what
opportunities as well as dangers may emerge through it -- would be
important. Sadly, we are not in a political position to discuss it
productively....
And I might add that dire warnings of the global warming, etc. are
not likely to bring about the emergence of a collective of political
agents capable of abolishing capitalism; they tend to depoliticize
folks. Discussion of the environment has to be rooted in analysis of
political agency & power. No political subject, no transition to
socialism.
Yoshie
