No Megalomania in Capitalism (was Re: seth & defusing korea tensions)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Tue May 30 11:42:59 PDT 2000



>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>>Besides, love of Bigness for the sake of Bigness does not run in
>>the capitalist families. The art of capitalism dictates that you
>>must know when you need to Downsize: firing workers, discontinuing
>>product lines, closing factories, bankrupting companies & countries.
>
>Except that you downsize to maximize profits and elevate the stock
>price. Smallness in the service of greater bigness.
>
>Doug

Yes, and North Korea, too, should be discussed in this context. Unifying the two Koreas on capitalist terms should help the ruling class, I think. A large number of North Koreans will be left to fend for themselves in the labor market, pushing up the unemployment rate. Downsizing North Korean megalomania (= bloated employment & inefficient production, making goods that could be far more cheaply produced elsewhere) in favor of greater profits.

On the other hand, in such an event, the U.S. will have one less "rogue state," but to qualify for "rogue state" status, a country doesn't have to be socialist even in name much less substance, so any old poor country in a strategically convenient location would do for the maintenance of post-Cold War imperialism. A "rogue state" doesn't have to possess a credibly modern military either; you can always argue that it has a "capacity" of posing a military threat. If a religious cult in Japan could develop & use Sarin, why can't Iraq, Iran, North Korea, etc.? Or any country (except America, of course), for that matter? Unlike Americans, they are all so irrational that they might use chemical & biological weapons. They are all out to get us, you know. (Not many Americans buy this propaganda outright, but since America isn't democracy, the opinion of the masses doesn't count.)

And Diallo, et al. _could_ have appeared threatening to cops (it's America, so anyone _could_ have a gun!); Mumia _could_ have killed the cop; the Scottsboro boys _could_ have raped the white girls; Sacco & Vanzetti _could_ have been bomb-throwing anarchists; etc. All possible arguments with varying degrees of credibility, but credibility isn't the point in ideology. The point seems to me to be to create enough doubts in the minds of potential supporters of leftist causes. Doubts paralyze & immobilize most -- if not all -- people, making them fence-sitters instead of activists. We don't have to believe in the ruling propaganda -- we can criticize it (mostly) freely (as long as we don't take any actions); we just have to take leftist propaganda with a giant grain of salt (enough to shrivel up passion for leftist causes).

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list