raghu wrote: > > >> With no sign of a serious systemic threat, there's just > >> no reason for the ruling class to accept even a mild reformist > >> agenda.
I'm not sure in what sense Doug used "systemic threat," but I would consider the term to reference an organized and self-conscious opposition, wielding considerable power, to capitalism as a system. The Soviet Union and various other national struggles constituted such a threat at one time. > > As the saying goes, Doug, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder:I see > > many signs of a serious systemic threat coming, from the"riots" in > > France to the protests against FTAA in Argentina, toSarbanes-Oxley, to > > the attempts to regulate the hedge funds, tothe unstoppable rise of > > corporate governance > > debates, to Katrina and New Orleans, to what have you. No. These might (and might not) constitute the raw materials from which a threat might arise, but they do not as such constitute a threat of any kind to the political, social, and economic power of capital. What "may be coming" doesn't butter many parsnips. > > There appears to be a major systemic threat brewing in the US (and > therefore world) financial markets. The burgeoning "twin deficits", the > housing/assets/oil bubble, historically low risk-premiums, and the > weakness in the dollar all point to a significant financial event waiting > to happen. Here's one blog talking about systemic risk from CDOs: > http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/setser/101116/ This is merely the threat of economic disaster, which has occurred many times in the past, and in and of itself it is no threat to capital or capitalism. > I am curious about the opinion of PEN-L members: could a major financial > crisis be a good thing (by serving as a catalyst for change) even though > it would result in enormous short-term suffering worldwide? What anyone "thinks" on this is neither here nor there. Crises come (and crises go). We still have to confront the core truth that "If you don't hit it, it won't fall." Carrol
