Wojtek
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2013, at 10:57 AM, "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > A return to feudalism or palace economies would be preferable to the
>> > continued existence of capitalist relations of production.
>>
>> Oh Jesus. This is just classic sentimental romantic anti-capitalism. If
> you could
>> get 10 people who weren't employed by the International Forum on
>> Globalization to agree with this I'd be surprised.
>
> Not really. I have no love for either feudalism or palace economies or
> other formations grounded in coercive seizure of the surplus. The best (when
> it is not the worst) thing to be said of them is that they are
> stable/stagnant. (Those two words are descriptive synonyms incorporating
> opposing valuations of the situation described.) They are not destructive of
> the future: that is they incorporate the possibility of desirable change.
> There is also, in these and other 'pre-capitalist' social formations a
> reasonably direct relationship between the declared purpose of an action and
> the action's probable results.
>
> My point about capitalism is its essential instability. (That's an empirical
> not a theoretical statement. One need not be a Marxist to make it.)
>
> I believe someone either on this or the pen-l list has argued that
> capitalism can exist without growth. As I understand Marx that is
> impossible.
>
> How long do you think the habitability of the globe (at least for any kind
> of industrial society) can last with continued growth?
>
> What are the political forces that could control growth (actually, reverse
> it) within the present economic and political structures? I see none.
>
> I don't like "localism" any more than you do, and I am convinced as well
> that "localists" can never develop the political forces to put their
> "vision" into practice. BUT their ideas do not drop from the sky or spring
> from mere "romanticism" (that's a silly term anyhow) but are in response to
> their perception of the (unavoidable) destructive nature of continued
> industrial growth. Moreover, they assume that the present will continue
> while it doesn't continue. (I don't know any better way to express it.) But
> you can't just dismiss them with a sneer.
>
> Take the long view. The sun in a few billion years will go nova. Living
> conditions will probably disappear earlier. There will someday be a final
> human generation. Eventually, why not now?
>
> Carrol
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."