>Oh yes, and Marx. Did you ever read the Grundrisse? I love that damn book,
>but clear it ain't.
But Marx wrote the Grundrisse to himself - Butler is writing to us.
And Doug writes of the DecofInd:
'Clear language, yes, but a bunch of crap. Proclaiming a truth as self-evident is a lot easier than arguing the point. And remember, that document was written by a slaveholding anti-urbanite who was in many respects deeply reactionary. Just goes to show that things don't always mean what they seem to mean, even if the prose is as clear as beer pee.'
Still the best practical and inspirational document a Christian liberal capitalist order ever promulgated though. The document is worshipped by most Americans, no? Ozzies have nothing like that ('cept maybe the Easybeats' 'Friday on my Mind').
And the points it makes did not require argument - it was a manifesto.
Firstly, they spoke in the material interests of America's nascent bourgeoisie and, very probably, everyone else in America who they counted as fully human. And I'm sure women, indigenous Americans, Afro-Americans and a host of others variously oppressed have found handy rhetorical and legally practical tools in the Declaration since.
And secondly, it was a long sight better than anything British people might have anticipated at the time - if they hadn't booted Tom Paine out of England, you'd have got a much lousier document, if one at all ... and he did a fine job of reasoning in some fine accessible English in his books and pamphlets - EP Thompson reckons everyone was reading *The Rights of Man* or having it read to them at the time - such that the reasoning distilled in the DoI maybe seen as something of a kickstarter for 'The Age of Revolution'.
Like beer pee, the DoI served as a great practical guide (the only good reason for penis envy I know is that a chap need but stand at a urinal to know whether he should drive home or not - it goes clear the moment you hit .08, I find).
And thanks for clarifying the accumulation thing.
I'd've thought, though, that one advantage of a tight keiretsu arrangement was that competition would not be so intense as to obviate the pursuit of the ruling class's collective interest (co-operating and using the huge arsenals of cash at their disposal to maintain the market economy and domestic social stability during hard times such as to cop the benefits on the much-anticipated global upturn). If keiretsu is not up to that, Japan might as well do the whole Anglo-Saxon thing, eh? If keiretsu is up to that, and ain't doing it - well, then methinks they're anticipating some real carnage from both east and west.
Cheers, Rob.