Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:11:31 -0800
From: djones-AT-uclink.berkeley.edu (rakesh bhandari)
Subject: Re: M-TH: Mattick 4


Karl, though you quoted boddhisatva's words as mine (and who could be upset
to be confused with the englightened one), your reply proves to be
stimulating, original and disturbing--vintage Carlisle.

>However because capital is so weak and historically obsolesecent
>capitalism as a social system is afraid and unable to allow its own
>laws to express themselves freely and atavistically. It is afraid
>that if the laws of capital were to be unleashed it would so
>undermine present conditions economically, sociologically and
>politically that the working class would pose an unprecendented
>challenge to the system. The bourgeoisie dont feel strong enough to
>face such a challenge.

I think we need to understand theoretically the function of the devaluation
of capital in Marx's theory and what seems to be the impediments to it that
you are suggesting. Thinkers as diverse as Michael Perelman (in his book on
Keynes) and Walter Daum have dealt with the problem, so I am aware of it,
but have no profound grasp of it.

>. Still this liberalisation
>assumes a restricted and statally managed form because of the
>economic and political weakness of the bourgeoisie. Its fear of the
>economic, political and sociological consequences of liberalisation
>means that it must be statally managed to provide the bourgeoisie
>with better conditions for managing and controlling any political
>fallout from liberalisation.

The fallout from liberalization is in prison, Karl, or thrown back over the
border. Is this what you mean by management? Soon millions more will be
thrown out of their detention center public housing projects into the
streets or forced to vacate by the end of rent control. Look we live under
the guns of Anglo-American capitalism, this is not France or Germany. But
at least we can say once again de fabula narratur (correct my Latin, while
I search the correct preface). I don't really see how you can see NAFTA as
a containment of capital's contradictions and compare it to Jospin's
efforts-- at least he has made half-assed comments about public sector
expansion at the expense of inflated dividends. NAFTA is simply an assault
against nature and labor.

Your thoughts on the nature of the state are always appreciated.

Comradely
Rakesh

ps did you check out David Garland's book on Punishment and Modern Society.





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