Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> At 01:26 PM 2/29/2008, Eric wrote:
>
> > >And "capitalism" has _always_ been able to absorb almost _any_ kind of
> > >reaction or personal traits to the needs of capital. There is no
> > >evidence that this has changed in any significant way.
> >
> >Yes, there's nothing new under the sun. Nothing's changed since the
> >30s, or Marx's day, or 1650, or at whatever magical date in the past.
>
> Capitalism is, or was, new, and I'm sure Carrol would be the first to say so.
Agreed. Capitalism was/is new -- more than new it is unique among social systems in actually _being_ a system. Other modes never had the power of absorption or the endless flexibility that capital has. That is why there can be a "science of capitalism" (or critique of political economy) but not of any other social system or of history. E.g., so-called "feudalism" happened to generate conditions within which capitalism became a possiblity, but the actual emergence of capitalism was in no way inevitable. On the other hand, endless growth is a necessity of capitalism, not a choice or a contingency.
Carrol