Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 22:30:55 -0600 (CST) From: jelly-AT-mail.utexas.edu (Jessica and Sterlings Mail) Subject: Re: M-I: the late 40's, 50's and 60's vs 70's , 80's and 90's was : RE: "can afford" vs "want to afford" Adam wrote: >I think the long boom had objective economic causes. >This was, essentially, what has been described as the >permanent arms economy - the wartime level of military >spending sustained throughout 20 odd years of "peace". It is quite interesting to me how industries can become entwined within our economic sturcture (oil is another great example) in a way that would/will (there are marxians who are paciFists) make restructuring virtually impossible. Incredibly efficient at what they do (proliferate, much like culture, or any other biological organism) they are unfortunately adept at surviving; the Smithian "invisible hand" has, free from the necessary beauracracy of a "true" socialized state, much flexibility; as we saw (and Reagan and the DoD cheered), the hand of the state is often not big enough, not fast enough, or just plain not there. What I am suggesting is that a business is a business in any economic superstructure; we must learn from what we can say without a doubt (ie, the good ole' scientific method) about how businesses work. Because even though I see the increase in class antagonism, an increase in exhorbitant and irresponsible exploitation of global resources, and, in the US, a new intensity to the great propaganda machine of (post-Neitzche, patriarchal) platonic materialism, I cannot, as a TRUE beleiver in actualization through labor and the naturalness of the communal state, say that capitalist businesses race to their own death just because thats what they do. Businesses do what they do; they do this for some reason I still can't fathom. >It is wrong, both in fact and in theory, to explain a boom by subjective, political >factors, as Hugh does. I think that its legit; the first world and the World Bank, Apple computers and the university system, the US federal government and McDonald Douglass, they're all in bed together, dont' you think? >I would repeat my argument that today, ruling classes, because >of the deep, long term, economic crisis of the system, cannot >afford reforms I am inclined to beleive that the superstructure is capable of much more egalitarian distributions of wealth than before; yes, inflation in built in, and therefore increasing costs to maintain the standard of living for the bourgeoise- however, an increase in the standard of living is not built in (this is a post-80s abheration); and again, I don't think its just because capitalism "is that way"- this stock and trade marxist/marxian response really needs to be questioned. >If they are forced by working class struggle into granting reforms, >these reforms are temporary gains in a way that for instance the >British National Health Service was not temporary. This has a >political corollary - that if we are to win reforms, we have to use >revolutionary methods, as the French lorry drivers have shown >us. >FIRST the economic base, THEN the political consequences. "Revolutionary thrills with out revolutionary skills will get you killed" Think before you jump; the mess that the capitalists have gotten us into happened because people didn't think about vicious cycles before they began them, didn't think that thirty years down the road that Houston, Texas would be the ugliest city in the world. And, just a note; a lot of people out here seem to be taking other peoples responses and comments just a little too seriously. So I freely admit to being wrong in advance, just to save those of you to whom I refer the time it would take to flame me. humbly sterling Austin --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005