Marvin Gandall wrote:
>
>
> On a more serious note, I can't presuppose that what's bad for the US and
> capitalism is by definition good for everyone else. If that were so, we
> wouldn't have known fascism and world war. Economic crises strengthen the
> right as well as the left, and, unlike the 30s, we would enter a crisis with
> the former rather than the latter in the ascendent.
>
> Nevertheless, I don't doubt there will be a great deal of satisfaction among
> many politically progressive people if there is a crash for the reasons you
> mention. But some and maybe many of my largely apolitical or mildly
> progressive friends and neighbours and those closest to me will lose their
> jobs and homes - and in some cases their zest for life - and I can't take
> any satisfaction in that.
There are three quite separate responses to a (contemplated) future events, responses which such such jargon as "crisis marxists" obscure rather than illuminate. (1) Mere private wishing (or not wishing) for the event; (2) active atttempts to bring it about; and (3) planning action in response to it.
In the present case both the first and secon are trivial, since (1) is trivial in all cases (except perhaps to the wisher's mother or therapist) and (2) cannot be affected, in this case, by anything any individual, marxist or non-marxist, does.
If there are plans that can be made in case we have strong reasons to expect (sooner or later*) the kind of catastrophe under discussion here, then we should indeed be examining those reasons closely, in order to determine what kind of action in the present is dictated by either expectation.
Would it be useful at the present time for u.s. leftists to predict loudly, in whatever medium is available to them, the coming of economic catastrophe (assuming that such predictions are never certain)? Would it be harmful for us to predict it if it failed to materialize in the next few years?
For example: we do not know with any certainty that the u.s. will fail it its brutal attempt to crush resistance in Iraq. (Pacification does sometimes work.) Nevertheless, it seems to me important for leftists to proclaim from the rooftops that u.s. casualties in Iraq are in vain; that the u.s. is losing and will lose. If we turn out to be wrong, nothing great will be lost. If we turn out to be right, much may be gained.
A similar perspective needs to be taken on this debate between Patrick and Doug. I learned long ago not to make economic predictions myself. The question of whether one thinks a crash would be good or bad is, as I said above, only of interest to the prophet's mother or therapist. But for practical political planning the question of whether one will come or not is of some importance.
Certainly, it doesn't help to ascribe motives to any of the disputants. I hope to live long enough to see, just once, Doug participate in a debate in terms of the issues involved rather than the hypothetical motives of those involved in the debate.
Carrol