Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On May 22, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
> > That is brings up an interesting sociological question: must the
> > ruling
> > class be a coherent social group to function effectively as the ruling
> > class in a capitalist society? Or is their social function as the
> > expropriators coherence enough?
>
> That's one of my questions. I'm not sure of the answer. But I'm
> thinking that the Iraq disaster and the subprime crisis are what
> happens when the pure pursuit of profit and short-term political
> advantage takes the upper hand.
It has not yet been established that Iraq _is_ a disaster in any large sense. It is a disaster for the people of Iran; it _may_ in the future prove to be damaging to u.s. hegemony within the capitalist system. But none of these things; it is a sort of disaster for various trends within the Republican Party, but such 'disasters' are commonplace within both parties and there is no necessary reason that this one will be any differerent. It is _not_, as far as I can see, a disaster or even an impending one for capitalism or for u.s. capital (however we define that admittedly vague entity). It is by no means clear what _would_ constitute a disaster for capitalism. And I don't see how at present it is possible to predict any overwhelming loss of 'balancd' by the U.S. or its capitalists as a class.
Similar points could, I believe, be made about the subprime crisis.
"If you don't hit it, it won't fall." There is nothing around just now to deliver very strong blows against u.s. capitalism. If very many capitalists are in a panic (and I don't see the evidence) I think that they are being premature.
Carrol