On 2010-11-10, at 11:32 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "to lead the workers to state power through forms of political class
> struggle ranging from demonstrations to armed insurrection, its highest
> form."
>
> [WS:] Now, be serious. You do not really believe that armed insurrection is
> even remotely an option in the EU or the US, do you?
Oh, abolutely. You clearly haven't read my polemic against Comrade Cox who, like yourself, denies that an armed insurrection on the agenda, or that the US left is in any kind of position to lead it. I will have no truck with this kind of pessimism of the spirit!
> The main point of my
> posting was that the way to go is not a direct action but an institutional
> solution, such as a "modest proposal" by Varoufakis - which in my opinion
> has a chance of getting state support to stave off a breakdown, even if the
> elites oppose it. Do you have an opinion on it?
I haven't had time to read it, but I note Shane has said V's "modest proposal" is for an elected central bank. If this is so, V is dreaming in technicolour, or rather double technicolour. Not only would it never be elected, but national states and central banks would not surrender their sovereignity to it.
The latest Economist, which touches on this issue ("Beyond Bretton Woods 2") cites Barry Eichengreen's forthcoming book Exorbitant Privilege:
“No global government… means no global central bank, which means no global currency. Full stop.”
I will look at V's article to see whether he is being done an injustice, and, if so, will happily retract my comment above.