On Wed, 15 Feb 1995, Doug Henwood wrote:
> At 10:52 AM 2/15/95, Harry M. Cleaver wrote:
>
>
> > I see no "danger" here. I see no opposition between identifying the
> >functionaries of capital and understanding "systemic forces". In the
> >first place theoretical arguments about "systemic forces" means little or
> >nothing to most people. What does means something is who knew what, when
> >and what they did about it. In the second place, theoretically speaking
> >the concept of "systemic forces" has no meaning without agency. I don't
> >mind the use of the term but I would never give it the kind of
> >structuralist interpretation that leaves out subjects. Things certainly
> >happen behind the backs of the actors, but mostly what that means is that
> >the outcomes of their actions are not always what they expect or intend.
>
> As I said, it was important that the memo was published; it proved that
> accusations that "Wall Street" wants the Zaps dead are no mere leftist
> inventions. And of course it's important to put a face on abstractions like
> "Wall Street" and "capital." But because "systemic forces" may not mean
> much to most people is no reason to ignore them.
Doug: As I suspect you know. I don't ignore them.
Chase can now disown
> Roett, as it's done; Goldman Sachs could disown Chase if it wanted to. When
> I spoke with Counterpunch's editor, Ken Silverstein, this morning, I made
> this point, and he entirely agreed, adding, "It's not like Goldman Sachs
> came out for social reform in Mexico or anything."
Doug: Sure, no doubt. It's being done as we speak. But my guess is it
doesn't matter to most people who have heard the story and read Roett's
report. They get the picture, despite the doubletalk.
The
> liberal-populist/muckraking/journalistic instinct is very prosecutorial and
> individualized; throw out the bad apples and all will be well. But of
> course all won't be well.
Doug: Of course not. But muckraking only devolves into throwing out JUST the
"bad" apples if we let it. We are prefectly free to use the results of
muckraking to attack apples in general. So to speak. :-) In this case I
haven't heard ANYONE on the nets talking about good apples. I think
everyone is just delighted with the confirmation of their suspicions, or
bothered by the collapse of their illusions.
Roett in this case is capital personified; it's
> important to make that broader point, but it can get lost in this kind of
> talk.
Doug: Again, it will only get lost if we let it get lost, and we aren't
doing that.
In fact, I'll bet that GS is happy Chase is taking the heat.
>
Doug: Frankly I could care less about the sordid family quarrels of
capital. I'm just hoping some energetic guerrilla researcher comes up
with a similar internal report from GS. In the meantime, we go on making
all the points we can, at every level, to whatever audiences we think we
can reach.
I'd say, so far, we're doing pretty well. Zedillo has (apparently)
stopped the military advance and the PRI govenor has resigned
(unfortunately to be replaced with another PRI goon.) Now the point is to
work to get the troops out of the areas they have invaded, liberate the
prisoners they have taken, expose the torture (and who knows what else)
they have committed and get on with pushing demands for democracy and
social restructuring in Mexico (and in the U.S. and elsewhere). Along the
way we learn what we can about the enemy and think about how to use it to
best advantage. I think we agree about this.
======================================
Harry Cleaver
Department of Economics
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas 78712-1173
USA
Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 442-5036
(off) (512) 471-3211
Fax: (512) 471-3510
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
======================================
