[lbo-talk] Understanding _Capital_ (Was Re: barbaric)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

On 3/7/07, Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 10:36 PM -0500 7/3/07, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >Recognition that reproduction of capitalism ultimately depends on
> >force doesn't mean, though, that "taking up arms," in the fashion, for
> >instance, Fidel Castro, et al. once did, is an effective strategy even
> >in very poor parts of the world -- in fact, that is very rarely the
> >case.  It does mean keeping in mind that, even if you come to power
> >through electoral means, the other side often will not let you govern
> >peacefully when they decide you've gone too far, as Mossadegh, Arbenz,
> >Allende, etc. realized, and, but for the support of loyal soldiers and
> >civilian masses, Chavez might have ended up sharing their fate.
>
> Why "but for the support of loyal soldiers and civilian masses"? If
> it all "ultimately depends on force", then surely the US government
> can muster the military force to overthrow Chavez?
>
> If the answer is, the US public wouldn't take too kindly to that kind
> of naked aggression, then capitalism doesn't "ultimately depends on
> (military) force". Rather, it must be that it ultimately depends on
> public consent. If indeed we assume capitalism is even threatened by
> Chavez.

Chavez's government may eventually become a threat to capitalist
social relations inside Venezuela -- it is not yet, though he has
clearly gone further than oligarchs could tolerate, hence the coup,
sabotage, etc. -- but even if it does it still won't in itself
threaten global capitalism, just as state socialism, past and present,
outside the West hasn't threatened the existence global capitalism.
But, then again, Saddam Hussein's government, for instance, didn't
pose any threat to capitalism at home or abroad either.  The US public
has so far allowed Washington to invade Iraq and continue the Iraq
War.


> >As far as the West is concerned, very few workers are thinking right
> >now of establishing a concrete alternative to "capitalist economic
> >dictatorship."  Hence relative peace at home.
>
> If that's relative peace, then spare us turmoil.

Even if you look at the history of the West alone, setting aside the
rest of the world, peace* like today's West's is rather exceptional.
Will this be the norm that will last for decades to come, or will it
break down sometime in the future?

* In the USA, the decline in work stoppages in the last couple of
decades is extraordinary:
<http://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.t01.htm>.
-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>