peace Jim Davis Ozark Bioregion, USA, Planet Gaia check out my books at:http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=141735
--- On Sat, 4/17/10, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Fwd: John Gray, Thatcher
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Saturday, April 17, 2010, 5:37 PM
> Since I don't really have a response
> to any particular argument, I'll
> just throw out a few points:
>
> 1. The idea of a progressivist, universalizing capital
> operating
> throughout and exercising creeping control over the world
> is a
> complete myth, the Manifesto Marx's idea that over time he
> severely
> amended, or, I would argue, completely left behind. Not
> only is the
> history of capitalism one of increasing and then
> decreasing
> "globalization," but even in its most "advanced" states, it
> always
> operates by segmentation and exclusion. As much as capital
> wants to
> cover the whole earth, and beyond, it never really can
> because it
> always relies on stratification to function.
>
> This doesn't mean that the appropriate response is to
> demand that
> capital first be made universal, the socialist desire to
> "take capital
> at its word." Besides being impossible, capital doesn't
> give a shit if
> you believe in it not. Of course, localist types make a
> similar
> mistake when they think they can find autonomy anywhere, as
> if capital
> can't operate on micro levels and doesn't affect small
> things. If it
> didn't it would be a lot easier to overcome.
>
> 2. Capital does rely on the local. It needs communities of
> care
> (families, but also larger than that) to reproduce its
> workers and
> nation-states to realize its surplus. Expecting people to
> think and
> act outside those locations of operation seems like a
> demand for
> heroism, and thinking that the local is not a useful site
> for
> disruption and transformation seems pretty wrong.
>
> 3. The demand that "the revolution" maintain and expand
> capitalist
> technological development is an interest, which I guess is
> okay, but
> it makes me wonder: would you give up your iPhone in
> exchange for
> communism? Okay, maybe that's a silly question, because it
> not only
> predicts the future but imagines one in which the two are
> incompatible. But I do think that if people are primarily
> interested
> in conserving their cars, 401k's, and lifestyles, then
> communism is
> impossible. Not because those things are dissonant with
> communism, but
> because it means no one's willing to put anything at risk.
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>