Capitalism's rate of decay ( Communication)

[Brad Mayer]

A slight correction:  I had meant to differ with what is implied in 
Mandel's title, by defining that moment as post- _First_ World War. I'm 
sure this is because I was being a bit obscure in presenting Keynes and the 
Russian Revolution as two pieces of circumstantial evidence.  Although 
_much more_ circumstantial evidence can be brought to bear on the case, the 
substantive theoretical argument has really yet to be made, although works 
such a "Empire" contribute some important elements - those are the parts I 
look favorably upon.  But Mandel, despite valuable contributions to 
understanding '70's capitalism, tends, overall, to duck this issue.

At 04:22 AM 8/16/01 -0400, you wrote:
>Brad defined that moment, paraphrasing Mandel, as taking shape in the
>postwar world. Marx (and Althusser) said that the industrial revolution is
>actually more like it--ie labor does not own or set in motion the means of
>production (in a mundane sense) at this point.

One can argue over "beginnings", as well, but what I was responding to  was 
a received sense of a "dual skepticism", the higher order of which seemed 
to suggest that the periodization of capitalist development was 
impossible.  This is presented indirectly, though, through a "lower order 
skeptical method" (as yet not nailed down ;-) of questioning this or that 
particular periodization.   But the onus is on those who would like to 
treat capitalism as a historical phenomenon without beginning or end - or 
what in practice is the same thing, without a _knowable_ beginning or end - 
to substantiate their case.  Pure skepticism won't do, as it is easily 
ignored without adverse consequence.


>Open-ended skepticism is
>probably to the point in this circumstance. (ie. an empirical argument 
>about when capital really became capital). Else, you're left with a kind 
>of hollow messiansism a la' Derrida--ie the end of capitalism is "to come" 
>but you don't know when, etc.  Of course, there are also lots of practical
>messianisms at play here also, but with huge swathes of India and Africa 
>(to take two non-random examples) yet un- or under-proletarianized, it's 
>hard to see how capital might have reached its zenith or to be 
>significantly more at risk as a system now than, say, 30 or 40 years ago.

Again, the expansion of capital cannot be a criterion for the periodization 
of the system as a whole.  Otherwise, we'd be in the absurd position of 
arguing that capital - self expanding value that must ceaselessly justify 
its existence by profit, as we've seen as of late in the dot.com world - 
will never end!  And the question of 'decay' is not to be confused with 
that of 'risk', whose determinants are primarily 'subjective' and 
political.  It is theoretically possible for capitalism to 'decay 
endlessly' until at some point it ceases to be recognizable as such, 
without any risk at all.

-Brad Mayer


>Christian