----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis Robert Redmond" <dredmond at efn.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 7:02 PM Subject: Re: first anti-capitalist
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, R wrote:
>
> > Gareth Stedman Jones
> > Monday August 12, 2002
> > The Guardian
> >
> > abolition. But whether Marx - theorist of a post-capitalist
order of
> > communism, rather than sustainable development
>
> Simply not true. Marx rightly abstained from *any* real
characterization
> of what a post-capitalist society would look like. "Capital" was
the first
> great theory of capitalism as a mode of production; other
theorists would
> follow (Benjamin, Lukacs, Adorno, Sartre, all the way to Jameson
and
> Bourdieu).
>
> > compatible with a broad range of political regimes. Yet what
Marx initially
> > promised was a post-capitalist society. It would be as dynamic
as
> > capitalism itself, but no longer subject to an arbitrary market,
freed from
> > scarcity and its class-bound polarities of wealth and poverty.
>
> Marx promised nothing of the sort. A utopian society might be
remarkably
> static instead of ceaselessly dynamic, at least in the sense that
*we*
> understand dynamism; we just can't say, because we're not there
yet.
> Doesn't anyone actually *read* "Capital" these days?
==================
Just how would we know when we "arrived" at a static society?
Ian
"An indefinite boundary is not really a boundary at all." (Wittgenstein)