On Oct 9, 2010, at 11:00 AM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
> It's not the printing that's the problem, it's what the fabricated money
will be used for that's the problem.
>
> They will not be using it to create jobs, fix roads, etc.
As a friend of mine recently put it, the bourgeoisie has decided that they want capital-friendly monetary stimulus, and not more working-class-friendly fiscal stimulus. Doug
======= Luxemburg is being vindicated. There is no such thing as "Progress," though changes may at times be "likable" that does not express any historical dynamic but merely a contingent set of conditions. Hence any "gains" this year or this decade last only as long as they do not interfere with capital accumulation. There is simply no form of struggle or no kind of political message that can change this chaotic dynamic.
The destruction of capitalist relations would create a condition of possibility, but that is all; it would not automatically generate a new set of "satisfactory" social relations but merelyd establish a context in which barbarism was not certain. This is not inconsistent with Lenin's actual practice, though it does contradict a pseudo-Leninist* 'theory' building a "revolutionary" party which will over time build a "revolutionary" movement which will destroy capitalism. That 'theory' (in its many variations) is merely a variation of bourgeois progressivism. This year's victories do NOT establish a stable condition on the basis of which next year's struggles can proceed. There is no continuity in the revolutionary process, but it is subject to the same forces of change which make a mockery of bourgeois attempts to build up a "progressive" force by the accumulation of small gains. The earlier gains melt away before further gains can be achieved.
Revolution (violent or peaceful) cannot be affirmed as either possible or desirable. (Both would be resorts to a crystal ball, and neither Marxists nor liberals possess a crystal ball.) It can only be affirmed as a necessary condition for avoiding barbarism -- or, rather, for creating the possibility of avoiding barbarism.
Carrol