<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 11:13 PM, Jon Johanning wrote:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>"It would be nice if a falling rate of profit could be neatly correlated <BR>with the political developments you mention, and if we could get a <BR>clear indication of when the "rate of profit" is rising and falling. <BR>Then an awful lot of what happens in the political world would become <BR>crystal clear. I'm afraid though, that these "ifs" are a case of "if we <BR>had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs." But perhaps I'm <BR>being too skeptical (I often am)."</FONT><BR></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>No necessary reason that I can see for skepticism here, Jon.  I'm far from sophisticated in economics, but I thought that the rate of profit was related to many things.  My main point was that capital was alarmed at the well documented falling rate between the mid-60s and mid-70s (See Henwood's table on page 204 in After the New Economy).  And I won't forget in the early 70s, while doing the Marxist study group thing in Detroit, visiting a computer friend late one evening at his office in General Motors.  I asked him to produce a GM profit table.  The downward plunge in the printout's curve made me actually laugh out loud, confirming in the real world what I was learning from the classics.  But I'm not able to speak of political cause and effect (or ham and eggs, whatever) in any rigorous terms.  I do assume that the plight of capital - along with simultaneous liberation movements and labor militancy - bore greatly upon capital's increased militancy in the 70s which was related to politics (right, center, and left) moving rightward and the dimunation of peoples' and workers' movements.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jon also wrote:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>"One thing we need badly, <BR>IMHO, is a new vision of where we should be going that will win <BR>agreement from a broad swath of the working class. "Socialism" is, <BR>unfortunately, no longer a useful word in this country; I don't mind <BR>using it myself, and I'd like to keep the historical continuity with <BR>the great movement of the past, but as a name for what we are fighting <BR>for it's pretty much dead at this point. The old SDS phrase <BR>"participation in the decisions which affect our lives" is much too <BR>abstract to arouse a desire to struggle in the masses, but it points in <BR>the right direction. At any rate, we need a lot of work on "the vision <BR>thing.""</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Couldn't agree more with your last sentence, thus the new subject line of this message (if that's acceptable).  Vision=act of imagination.  Collective vision=initial stage in the formation of a social movement.  Perhpas socialism isn't the public name of what we're fighting for, but it's still the vision of many.  Let's not throw the baby out---.  Most on this list must be ideological socialists.  Over the years I've worked with hundreds of ideological socialists and run into thousands, though most didn't call themselves that.  Wouldn't be surprised that great numbers of yesterday's anti-war marchers in at least 300 U. S.cities (100 K in N.Y., 50 K in San Fran, 1 K in Crawford, TX) were predisposed to socialism.  We don't publically have to call ourselves socialist or belong to explicitly-socialist groups to still BE socialist.  As such, we can work in practical worker and community projects that raise anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist consciousness.  If we're capable, we can be anti-capitalist troubadours or propagandists, or scholars like the unabashed Michael Yates who in his Naming the System told it like it is without explicitly calling for socialism.  Yet, socialism is written between the lines in his fine work, and many others continually emerging.  </FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Then there's a kind of social science connected to the socialist vision which too many fail to apply to historic trends in economy.  "What is the alternative?" can be asked.  All roads lead ultimately to socialism," is another simplistic way of putting it.  Those roads were hewn out of  primitive wilderness a couple hundred years ago and now have become superhighways.  Directional signs don't say "this way to socialism."  More likely they may say "this way to fascism."  The sign designers are those in charge at a given historic moment.  Today's designers have routed us on to many contradictory byways.  One thing certain, highway traffic speed has accelerated in the current period.  Toward what?  The answer bears upon optimism or dejection.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2>In the March '04 issue of Monthly Review, Michael Yates wrote a great optimistic piece that said,</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA"><FONT size=2>"Let me conclude by saying that this is not the time to abandon the working class. Capital is conquering the world, making the earth a gigantic cesspool of exploitation. What is more, this is happening pretty much as Marx said it would. His analysis is as relevant today as it ever was. And his singling out of the working class as the only viable agent of capital’s demise is as correct now as it was when he wrote <I>Capital.</I> Workers are the necessary element of the system, and they are the only force capable of forcing this system into the dustbin of history."</FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now, that's truly </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>a big vision thing, and compatible with my views.  But I have to keep reminding myself that the big v</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>ision incorporates smaller, time-constrained packages of practical activist work that's expressed in progressive third parties, peoples' and workers' movements, etc.  And I have to force myself to think that this all is a macro historical process, only to be realized long after my ashes are scattered to the winds.</FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3></FONT></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Bob</FONT></DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV></FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>