>>>From: Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>>>
>>>On the left most broadly conceived, for over a century the ruling
>>>commonplace has always been that Marx was right up to 25 years ago, but
>>>now things have changed, and the capitalism Marx knew is utterly
>>>transformed ....
>>
>>Presto, capitalism seems to have changed again and reverted to
>>classic form in the last three and a half months. Post 9/11, we now
>>have in-your-face imperialism that is indistinguishable, IMO, from
>>the 19th-century original. Now that we're living under the global
>>dispensation of Uncle Sam as No More Mr. Nice Guy, it's reasonable
>>to assume that Marx's insights into the overtly brutal system that
>>he witnessed will have new relevance.
>>
>>Carl
I have a strange notion, and I'm curious if anyone has written about it, or if it really is original to me.
I'm not convinced that we've gone back to the old style of capitalism, except in the most superficial way by dismantling social democracy, and even that largely in the English-speaking world. I just moved to Belgium, and social democracy seems to be alive and well here.
The role of managers and stock holders has changed in the most advanced countries, the nature of the firm seems to be changing, I have the impression that financing and access to capital doesn't work the way it used to. Furthermore, the biggest change seems to be that the worker has gone from having value only for his or her labour to being equally (if not more) valued as a consumer. None of these are recent things. All of them have been present in some form for decades, and none of them reflect the way people seem to think capitalism ought to, or used to, work.
Now, I'll admit I'm a recent refugee from Silicon Valley, so I may have a distorted view of reality, but the rhetoric about the "knowledge class" seems to have its points. At a company, the guy with the most secure job isn't the CEO, it's the engineer who actually understands how the company's products work. In start ups, the chief engineer is often the best paid employee, including the boss. Even in big firms - at least big successful firms - it's always clear who has the skills and who doesn't. At one point, it was actually harder to get technical talent in California than to get capital.
Has capitalism produced a new class other than the proletariat that is "destined to overthrow it"? Are we headed for (or already in) a technocracy, where the ruling class dominates not by virtue of any monopoly on capital but by a monopoly on specialised knowledge? The right seems to have caught on to the idea. It appears to be an underlying theme in _Bobo's in Paradise_ and _The New Barbarian Manifesto_.
I'm not exactly arguing in favour of the idea. I haven't fully thought it through and it just occurred to me after moving out of California a few months ago. But I'd like to know if anyone on the left - especially somebody with a Marxist class analysis in mind - has thought this idea through.
I haven't read _Empire_ but I don't have the impression this is what Negri and Hardt are saying.
Scott Martens