geo temporal displacement

Mark Jones Jones_M at netcomuk.co.uk
Wed Nov 4 20:32:23 PST 1998


Doug Henwood wrote:
> If you define Marxism as a theory of an inevitable terminal crisis of
> capitalism - which I think is always the point of the whole
> value-theorizing tradition, though they've gotten shy about admitting it in
> the late 1990s - yes, it is. But if you define Marxism as a theory of
> capitalism as a social system based on exploitation, which is unstable,
> polarizing, and destructive by its very nature, then Marxism has lot of
> life left in it.
>

But this thing with lots of life left in it, isn't the thing Marx laboured to evolve, which is (and only is, and this is imbricated into the structure of its historical and theoretical logic, which is why I don't quite agree with Chas Brown) a theory of capitalism as historically-bounded, meaning limited in duration because of the inevitable terminal crisis. Call what you seek Henwoodism, if you like. But Marxism, it ain't. Just another goddamn academic perversion. Yeah, I know, the DOW is back in positive territory, but my knuckles haven't turned white yet. This is still a bear market, probably the worst - no, definitely the worst - this century and it will continue until the last bull has left it; so the process of dog-leg declines has still got a long, long way to go and the rumours about being in remission are highly premature. Don't listen to me: go hear what the FT calls 'frustrated bear, Albert Edwards, global strategist at Dresdner Kleinwort Benson,' whose "denial indicator" currently shows that stock market analysts in the US and Germany are the most guilty of turning a blind eye to economic reality.' (FT, 4 Nov)

Closely followed by Sawicky (Hi, Max, I'm still savouring my case of whisky you're gonna send me next september).

Mark -- http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~jones_m/frontline.htm



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list