From: "Karl Carlile" <joseph-AT-indigo.ie>
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 16:01:16 +0000
Subject: Re: M-I: Was the USSR bankrupt?


I agree with everything Chris writes. I also think that he has hit upon
a fundamental question: the collapse of Bretton Woods, and taking the
dollar off the gold standard in ? 1972. This was a moment of maximum
danger and disaaray in the capitalist camp, and I know from talks with
Soviet diplomats and thinktankers that many felt there was a chance of
dealing the CWS a hammer-blow in 1972-74. This was in the wake of the
defeat in Vietnam, a strong revolutionary wave in Europe and even the
US, a revival of Marxism, strong worker militancy in many countries,
collapse of right-wing governments in britain and France amid systemic
crises of legitimacy, the 1973 oil-shock and subsequent devaluations,
and the cruel exposure of the curent incarnation of capitalist
production as being technically inadequate, extensive not intensive,
unprofitable and unstable. This was the high point of postwar socialism
and one could even dream of the reinvigoration of Soviet socialism in
the context of the rising tide of militancy in western Europe. So the
question of how capitalism regrouped, the pivotal role of Thatcherism,
sado-monetarism, and Reagan's voodoo economics which pushed the burden
of restructuring onto Africa and Latin America and left them in the
state they now are, the onrush of microelectronics and intensification
of capital prodctivity, the political counter-offensive, and the clear
weakness of the Soviet economy, its qualitative backwardness becoming
apparent after 1983-85 -- these are crucial topics in understanding how
we got where we are now -- and where we go next.

KARL: It would seem to me that there was nothing, in a sense, special 
concerning the changing "character" of capital in the post 68 
world. Much stranger and inconsistent with the nature of capital is 
if capital's "character" had not changed. Indeed its "character" is going 
to change again and again. It is in the nature of capital to be 
revolutionary.

The growing militancy of the late sixties and early seventies 
including the Vietnam war and events surrounding it were small beer. 
During that period the combativity of the western masses was in 
general contained within the limits of capitalism. Despite strikes 
and demonstrations of one sort or another in the West the working 
class had not chosen revolution. This is reflected in the kind of 
leadership they chose and their superficial understanding of how 
the problems of the working class can be solved. 

The crucial topics for understanding how things are as they are
today is not so much, as you suggest, how capital has developed
economically, politically and culturally over that period. The
crucial question is why is it that the working class in the
developed world continues to choose capitalism rather than
socialism? The crucial question is why is it that despite
opportunities presenting themselves to the working class on a plate
they refuse to choose to take advantages of these opportunities to
transform itself politically, organizationally and culturally?



                                      




                          Yours etc.,
                                     Karl   


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---