[lbo-talk] barbaric (was Marxism and religion)

[John Thornton]

James Heartfield wrote:
> John Thornton says capitalism is barbaric to its core. I think that is 
> silly. If it is just a semantic distinction then ok. But I think barbaric 
> does mean something. (It means civilised, in the sense of talking Greek, not 
> "Bar-bar", originally). For socialists with a sense of progress, it meant 
> slipping backwards, as in Luxemburg's slogan, socialism or barbarism (she 
> meant that in the conditions just before WWI there could be no stabilisation 
> of the market, only movement forwards or backwards into war.)
>   
I too think barbarism means something. For that reason I included the 
definition in my earlier response. Pretending that you alone in this 
discussion defined barbaric is rather disingenuous.
Capitalism fits the definition I posted quite well. If you want to 
redefine barbarism to mean something that excludes capitalism you should 
make that clear at the outset.
If you believe that the means of production in the hands of a small 
portion of the community who appropriate the profits of that production 
for themselves is not barbaric then that is your right. I find such an 
arrangement barbaric, as in not civilized. A civilized arrangement would 
be rather different in my mind as well as the minds of a great many others.
You seem to think all increases in technology are synonymous with 
civilization or that technology itself is inherently civilizing.


> John sees everything in black and white. So he insists that capitalism is 
> either one thing, or another thing. Civilised, or barbaric. That is why he 
> has to create the other realm of 'in spite of capitalism' where all the 
> positive advances of capitalist civilisation must be placed. But there is no 
> 'in spite of capitalism' that is not at the same time capitalism. Capitalism 
> is contradictory. It is both barbaric, and civilised. That is why it is 
> possible to transcend it.
>   
Thanks for letting me know that I see everything in black and white. 
It's always good to have someone else define my thoughts so clearly.
As you can imagine it saves me considerable time.
I also see that now you claim that capitalism is barbaric. You're making 
progress.

You seem to think that all that happens happens because of capitalism.
You also seem to think that all material and technological gains made 
are only possible because of capitalism.
This sounds suspiciously like seeing everything in black in white.
Do you imagine the Enlightenment was driven by capitalist pre-conditions 
as well?

Things can occur under a capitalist system that occur in spite of the 
capitalist condition.
You mention electricity, shoe laces, pencils, antibiotics as thought 
they only exist because of capitalism.
What evidence do you have that these items would not exist were the 
world arranged differently?
Had the English Civil War or the American Revolution resulted in a 
socialist social/economic arrangement then you must imagine we would not 
have pencils, electricity, antibiotics, or shoe laces?
If they are indeed only possible because of capitalism then obviously we 
could attribute them to capitalism as you do.
What evidence do you have that most items we have today exists because 
of capitalism and would not exist if a different social arrangement existed?

Where did I mention that "all the positive advances of capitalist 
civilisation must be placed" in a realm of 'in spite of capitalism'.
Where did define these positive advances? To the best of my knowledge I 
have never attempted to define what advances are positive or negative.

What evidence do you have to support your contention that:

Indeed, capitalist levels of productivity are way too low to meet the needs 
of the majority, they will have to be increased - and happily that should 
imply the natural corollary, resource efficiency, too.

John Thornton