A few quick rebuttals to other comrades after *
Carrol Cox wrote:
> Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> ducks the hard question of how capitalism evokes
>> popular consent
>>
>
> Yes.
* NoLogo?
123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> ...
>
> As for her goal of a kinder, gentler capitalism....what can I say?
>
* Which Naomi Klein is that?!
troy cochrane wrote:
> I think her analysis would have been stronger is she hadn't tried to
> identify the military interventions and other disasters as the sine
> qua non of capitalism.
* You'd say the same of Luxemburg? Lenin? Come on, there are times when capitalism systematically must turn to intense extraeconomic encounters to solve accumulation problems (or reflecting interimperial rivalries), and it's appropriate to connect the dots, if done so properly.
Marvin Gandall wrote:
> Shane Mage writes:
>
>
>> This is a "debate?" The truth of *both* positions is strikingly clear.
>>
> =======================
> My thought also. You've had many, many historical situations in which
> capitalism's exploded contradictions have made the system vulnerable, but
> where the corresponding rise in class struggle, including the growth and
> development of revolutionary organizations, has not been adequate to result
> in its overthrow. How else to understand the biggest convulsion, the Great
> Depression?
>
* It's a long debate, for sure, dating at least to Bernstein/Hilferding v Lenin/Trotsky/Grossman. And yes, I think Leo, Sam and Doug have been overly sanguine about matters of financial stability, at a time when organizing activists on economic justice could have used a bit more chicken-littlin'...
Cheers, Patrick