G'day Hugh,
What Rob is describing in Seattle is what Bob M and me have been describing
in Sweden, and what me and Bob and Dave have been going on about for years
now.
You go on about it during the recess breaks between retreads of the ol'
'I'm a good bolshie, you're a bad pb menshie, and all we need is
leadership' refrain. Or so it seems to me.
It's called an upsurge, and we have been very explicit about it as
being an expression of a worldwide tendency (mind you Dave thought it was
all a bit exceptional in a "reactionary" period, but that was then, maybe),
perhaps clearest in relation to Albania, the Congo and the Oz wharfies'
struggle.
Er, we got creamed in the Wharfies' strike, Hugh! And after that it was as
if nothing had ever happened. Seems our elected betters are preparing to
pull the same stunt on our one remaining strong politically-aware union as
we speak (the CFMEU, check 'em out at:
http://www.ifbww.org/~fitbb/INFO_PUBS_SOLIDAR/Information.html ).
I'll be putting up Marx's views on Free Trade and Protectionism from 1847
soon, again, for the umpteenth time, too, so we can all see that Free Trade
and Protectionism are not at all where it's at for the working class --
they're purely bourgeois concerns and always have been. We have other fish
to fry.
Fry fish when you have fish, I reckon. I'm going with the 'whither
democracy' line on WTO just now. Sorta furnishing the tacklebox, if you
like.
And I think it's weird that Rob "generally" agrees with Simon on
unspecified issues,
I made it pretty clear just on which specific - and important - points
Simon and I seemed to agree, did I not?
while he agrees (tends to agree) with me on the
fundamental scientific issue of the character of the bourgeoisie and its
relation to the productive forces of society at the present time, surely
one of the most important matters in the class struggle -- like, know your
enemy... I mean, it does sound as if Rob regards the imperialist
bourgeoisie as his enemy too, doesn't it?
Doesn't Simon? You're disagreeing on other things, I reckon. I tend to
your view on finance as decisive structure/engine of our day - and the role
of this development in highlighting to the suddenly resurgent populace its
role as functional object of exploitation. But Simon is getting at
something important, though. The attitude of a world in which the
financier's view of capitalism is replacing that of the
factory-owner-manager's view, IS an attitude of blissful consumption,
insofar as decisive price signals are ignoring the C that separates M1 from
M2. That'd distort production in the short term and separate stock values
from assetts/price-earnings ratios/sustainable productivity projections to
such a degree as to make the system vulnerable to a credit crunch of
possibly unprecedented intensity and durability. We can only guess at the
decisive kick-starter of such a crisis. But it'll come. Big finance has
proven itself very good at managing crises geographically (destroying
foreign brown capital/people), but a popped bubble on Wall St would demand
bailouts in the first instance - bailouts contingent on having lots of
precisely what a popped bubble would make scarce - public funds and lines
of credit.
Perhaps we should ask Rob to give us his definition of an enemy, him being
a sociologist and all, after a cold one on the porch of an evening has
subdued the fevered heat of yet another Oz summer's day...
It WAS bloody hot today (34 degrees and a cloudless sky, but I was sweating
in the shed with cups of tea, alas). Another warm one tomorrow, but mebbe
something for the water tanks come evening. No coldies until next week,
I'm afraid.
And I guess the socialist's enemy is the capitalist relation. Right now,
the fight is about minimising creeping (charging?) commodification of
what's left of our human lives. So that'd be the enemy du juour. If all
goes well, capitalism shall have produced for itself an enemy worthy of it.
One which has proven to itself its ability to defend (Bill Woodfull-style),
thus coming to entertain the thought of some aggressive strokeplay - at
first pursuing the first-innings deficit with a few cuts and hooks (Stan
McCabe-style), and then ruining the enemy's line and length altogether, and
taking the lead with some flourishing drives (Don Bradman-style). Jardine
(finance) would have Larwood (the state) charging in from the fence by
then, and it'd be on for young and old. Sorry to go so far into the
archives for my summery metaphor, but I needed to invoke an English cricket
team worthy of the might of capital.
One place you and Simon do disagree is to do with how'd you handle
capitalism's bodyline tactics? Do you emulate Jardine (as McCabe advised),
and emulate your enemy (grab the state and deploy its mechanisms) or do you
do a Woodfull (see the state as inimical to your raison d'etre and deploy
an unprecedented global integration in the context of unprecedented forces
of production to
