Marx certainly did not believe that "the evil capiralism would provide the means to get there". I would assert that he believed that capitalism held the seeds of its own destruction within it.
He believed it would indeed do everything in its power to survive, including eviscerating and overturning any democractic process that might result ultimately in the loss of its own power, even if those were democratic processess that it had created, especially one where people "chose" socialism.
The planet will be dead by then. its almost dead now.
Quite likely true, but regardless life goes on and the social processess that define the progress of human endeavour will still apply, and people will persist in trying to achieve justice and fairness in the context of some kind of sustainable environment. Unless you have some better suggestion?
Do you believe that the working classes are going to revolt anytime soon?
1. Cueball has already made something like the following point but perhaps it is worth re-iterating. Class struggle goes on every day. That's already a kind of "revolt" and it should not be trivialized.
And the flip side is worth looking at, because if you had even a cursory look at rabble.ca you would discover that the Brad Wall regime in Saskatchewan is carryin out some pretty serious class war against working people and the memberships of some of the leading trade unions in that province. In BC, the Campbell regime is doing much the same, but has been at it for a longer time.
So, I would assert that, in the opinion of political representatives of the bosses, working people are ALREADY "revolting" too much and, therefore, need to have their benefits slashed, their wages frozen or reduced, and their employment numbers severed with savage layoffs. Any resistance to these social atrocities is viewed as "revolting" and gets the angry attention of the state, the police, the courts, and so on. These political bagmen claim the right to carry out their social revenge on working people and do so with lots of enthusiasm, grunting piggish pleasure, and claims that it's all for a general public "good". Snort. Fort.
In any case, the point is that political regimes that represent big business interests, Conservatives and their ilk, feel that working people are ALREADY out of line and some ORDER needs to be "restored". Or something like that.
2. It's only NOW, after identifying some of the class war that's going on, right under your nose as it were, that the larger question of more serious "revolting" can be raised. When people are under attack - and one could make the point that working people have been under CONTINUOUS ATTACK since about the time of the Reagan/Thatcher atrocities of the early 1980's - it is essential to begin with their defensive struggles and only then move on to their offensive struggles.
3. Internationally, left political movements have had successes in Venezeula, Bolivia, Ecuador, ongoing in Cuba, and, more recently, the citizenry and working classes of Iran and Honduras have become mobilized into gigantic social movements and protests where they are literally risking their lives for democratic political and social objectives. Those regimes most definitely consider the protesters to be "revolting" and just to show their seriousness, they're killing some of the protestors, torturing others, arresting others, deporting international journalists, etc.
Have you been under a rock these last couple of months, or what?
4.
That belief almost seems religious to me. I admit I have not read Capital.
There are no difficult theological arguments in that book. In fact, Marx even disentangles a few mysteries, uncovers the "mystical" origins of money, and, in his spare time, exposes the fetishism of comodities to the light of day. His claims are regarding the historical "trajectory" of capitalism as a social formation, how the whole thing works, and, in actual fact, is at a rather high level of abstraction in volume one of Capital. In any case, it's my own view that no serious Marxist takes the view that the transition from capitalism to socialism is "inevitable" in any country; reading some of Marx's early works, like the Manifesto, might give you a different impression. Cueball has written in this thread: "For one thing his thought progressed and changed over the period of his life substantially, so in fact one can discover fairly clear contradictions within it." Exactly.
5.
Revolutions tend to stem from war, and especially world war.
Revolutions stem from crises - war being a particular sort of crisis - and a lost war by a reactionary and unpopular regime could lead to a "revolutionary situation". Or not.
Possibly more to follow.
"Some kind of" sustainable environment indeed, Cue.
Anyone looking for the seeds as in "seeds of its own destruction" could not do better than to see what industry and technology and the population bomb have done to all of Earth's ecological systems. Although, obviously old Karl was talking about the creation and growth of new social relations with the factory system, not its physical impact on the Earth's biological systems.
And that is surely the most effective message that one could use to bring about an end to a destructive system of production (and the all-consuming, endless and mindless consumption required for growth) instead of searching, in ever-narrowing circles, for the existence of that blessed class of revolutionaries. All are involved in the fortunes of The Market.
Somehow the "modern Marxist" avoids the subject like the plague, approximating the economist's banishing of the subject to the limbo of "externalities." This thread is a glowing example of avoidance and denial.
Neatens everything, I suppose, and does away with the fact that, sigh, we will really have to return (partially) to the agricultural state that old Karl could not wait to leave behind. We were all supposed to become more intelligent in the process of leaving behind agricultural rusticity, revolution made possible with the social relations created by our new means of production.
Noticed any changes pointing to a more hopeful future for any of the species, while we await a degree of social deprivation that will lead to conditions for revolution ? (Come to think of it, I'd really like to know where Marx ever mentioned Darwin. Anyone with some thoughts there? And I don't mean some abstract discussion about alienation from nature. )
The topic isn't environmentalism. Its Marx and class struggle. Or is any thread that doesn't mention Dave Suzuki in denial? Next time posters in the "what are you reading now" thread don't call for an end to the rampant industrial exploitation of the planet I expect you to call everyone on it for talking about books. Other than one or two passive agressive little stabs from you, without explanation and no subject Howard was the first person to mention it. When he raised the issue I responded directly.
Obviously, Marx shared some of the essential assumptions of those modernist thinkers of his age regarding progress and industrialization. That is hardly extraordinary, nor is it a deep critique. Anyone who demands that one adhere strictly to an interpretation of social relations as explicitly and precisely outlined in a set books written over a hundred years ago should obviously be ignored. So should those who assert that people are doing so without even broaching the subject.
I can name a dozen ways that a society that stood upon a foundation not entirely driven by market competition might have avoided many of the environmental pitfalls which beset us today.
For example, would Henry Ford have invented mass assembly line automobile production based on rigid systems of labour exploitation?
Cue
Lovelock found the same rigid mindset had brought biology to a standstill in trying to explain and understand climate change. With help from Margulis, he broke through.
Marx was interested in revolution ...for reasons that he set out in the opening sencences of Capital. He then went to endless pains to explain the nature of human relations through history and proposed remedial action on the new monster.
Asking if Marx would have remained mute, today, on the subject of environment - or if he had ever commented on Darwin - are valid questions for anyone who wants to go beyond your observation that "life goes on." on this dying planet. I believe your "some kind of sustainable environment" comment does not do justice to the way in which our means of production has brought new considerations to our understanding of political economy today. A whole new set of considerations that should be integrated in any Marxist's discussion of where people are at in their political consciousness today - young or old.
Or are we to just fill the existential vacuum with truisms?
Most Marxists directly tie in an analysis of the relationship between corporate exploitation the economy and the environment, so I assume that they would say that "yes, Marx certainly would have discussed the environment", since they are doing it in his hame. Darwin? Specifically, I think so, but I can't remember precisely. Both Marx and Engels like to be up to date on the science stuff.
And I am asking you if Henry Ford could have invented mass assembly line automobile production based on rigid systems of labour exploitation, in an economic system which was not entirely predicated on market competition and capital accumulation?
My fundamental belief is that no real action on the issue of the environment will happen without the reorganization of the economy on non-capitalist lines. All of the present day solutions such as market insentives, simply will not cut it. Solutions need massive state intervention and jail terms for violators.
Do most Marxists "tie in" the fact that we've all become dependent in our old age on the productivity of those corporations in an "economic system...predicated on market competition"? (Henry didn't invent specialization, he read Smith on pins. And it is interesting that his model town in Brazil, meant to demonstrate his Brave New World ideas, was defeated by the insects and bacteria that destroyed rubber trees grown too closely together without the protection of natural ecological systems).
In correspondence, Engels noted that only when the land of the Western Hemisphere and eastern Europe was all turned to production would it be time to "sound the alarm" like Malthus. And of course economists have been pointing out ever since that that was a false concern in light of our endless capacity for invention, those technological fixes that you don't hear so much about any more. Some still plow on, engineering new plant life that is going to have to make it in very hot and dry conditions, and without the aid of fertilizers made from natural gas.
But I am really interested to know such details of Marx' knowledge, and in particular any reference to that other revolutionary of his time, Darwin.
(Sorry Cue. I agree with some of your additions. I can't keep up with the revisions)
Thanks very much for the "trivia" link.
Do most Marxists "tie in" the fact that we've all become dependent in our old age on the productivity of those corporations in an "economic system...predicated on market competition"? (Henry didn't invent specialization, he read Smith on pins. And it is interesting that his model town in Brazil, meant to demonstrate his Brave New World ideas, was defeated by the insects and bacteria that destroyed rubber trees grown too closely together without the protection of natural ecological systems).
True, but he did impliment it in a massive form. There were meny people "inventing" modern production systems of this sort. For example Charles E. Bedaux. But the question remains, would such systems of mass production been invented in a society that was not founded first and foremost on labour exploitation and the accumlation of capital?
There is an NFB film about Bedaux you might find interesting called Champagne Safari. I'd like to see the movie about Ford's model village.
True, but he did impliment it in a massive form. There were meny people "inventing" modern production systems of this sort. For example Charles E. Bedaux. But the question remains, would such systems of mass production been invented in a society that was not founded first and foremost on labour exploitation and the accumlation of capital?
Part of Ford's method was classic concept for the circular flow of money where producers pay employees wages, and who in turn buy what producers sell. This is why Ford paid workers $5 bucks a day, which was famously high for workers then. This allows the economy to grow with increasing demand for goods. Ford and other US capitalists saw new opportunities for increasing profit margins, however, in Nazi Germany.
But today, circular flow of money is being bypassed with the new Liberal capitalism. Vast amounts of money are bypassing the circular flow of labour production and consumption and is being passed from the US fed and treasury directly onto balance sheets (and pockets) of financial capitalists. This is happening while workers and their families are weighted down by unprecedented levels of debt and now higher levels of unemployment. This can't continue for long before yet another crisis of capitalism occurs in addition to existing ones.
Article on Fordlandia first appeared in the July/August 1994 issue of Michigan History.
In the natural world, parasites demonstrate adaptability when they are able to move from host to host, after they have exhausted all that sustains them from the creature currently being exploited. With capitalism, the movement towards globalization, the GTO, GATT, and the creation of multi-national trading zones are instinctive mechanisms within the parasite that senses the happy times are being drawn towards an eventual conclusion, and that it's survival lay elsewhere. In North America, the excess capacity of the host has been eviscerated to the point where its ability to recover from the afflictions visited upon it is jeopardized through the continued siphoning of the very means of recovery, both the present and future value of labour, along with the survival mechanisms such as programs and institutions designed for itself, are being consumed through debt until even that level of sustenance runs dry. Self supporting labour itself is being dismantled and fed into the capitalist eco-system, as it prepares to disembark from the empty shell in search of something else to torment, to other areas already prepared for itself.
The concerted effort to erase sovereign boundaries over the last few decades is intended to ease the migration, like swarms of locust, from one exhausted zone to another where there still exists the conditions for exploitation. They have not altogether abandoned the emancipated carcass to cure in the sun though. It mutates with chameleon-like qualities into environmental capitalism, offering the population the means to miraculously regain its footing and continue on as before through the rejuvenating effects of green marketing, subsidized profit recycling, GM crops, unregulated sham organic production resulting in two distinct food chains, one for the relatively well off, and the cheaper toxic variant for everyone else. The apparatus of capitalism is being bought to bear through national and sub-national levels of control, laws are being introduced to bring the masses in line with the renewed order, as loopholes are built in to ensure that compliance only applies to the exploited.
Political groups of today seek to turn crisis into opportunity for itself through the expenditure of energy devoted towards synchronized existence alongside the mechanisms which operate to the detriment of society. In seeking a turn at influence, while presenting itself as a lesser variant of the same system, it serves to perpetuate the cycle of exploitation, perhaps at a slower rate of decomposition, while allowing the more voracious entities to regroup under another disguise.
Yeah, "doesn't employ others" is the key factor as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't mean small business owners are bad people. It just means you can forget about calling them part of the "working class", otherwise the term is totally meaningless.
It's about owning the means of production.
Where would my partner fall? He is self-employed, owns the "means of production", however has no employees. Quite a few self-employed artisans with zero employees.
It will be nice when rabble.ca is finally owned by the people! The mods have been a little uppity in asserting ownership rights.
In other words, Eric Jantszens prediction that the housing bubble would be followed by an alternative energy bubble (because capitalism needs bubbles to replace the old business cycles) is bang on. What is more, the feel-good green movement is counter-productive to any effort aimed at feeding the hungry (1 billion and growing) of the world.
And Marxists today should not themselves make use of the deteriorating situation to win power ("influence"?) since it would only "perpetuate the cycle of exploitation, perhaps at a slower rate of decomposition, while allowig the more voracious entities (neo-cons) to regroup under another disguise."
Used to read such analogies in studying sociology, jack, but they always wound up being more useful in explaining the processes at work in my composters than useful social theory. Can you take at shot at explanation from the perspective of political economy?
And Marxists today should not themselves make use of the deteriorating situation to win power ("influence"?) since it would only "perpetuate the cycle of exploitation, perhaps at a slower rate of decomposition, while allowig the more voracious entities (neo-cons) to regroup under another disguise."Used to read such analogies in studying sociology, jack, but they always wound up being more useful in explaining the processes at work in my composters than useful social theory. Can you take at shot at explanation from the perspective of political economy?
Marxists of the original bent wouldn't necessarily strive towards carving out a niche for themselves within the current exploitative model. Theirs is a completely different methodology from the prevailing leftist variations that we see before us. Having skipped past that nuance unnoticed, I sense that further shots in the dark would bring about much the same effect, and only increase your pile of compost.
The planet will be dead by then. its almost dead now.
Quite likely true, but regardless life goes on and the social processess that define the progress of human endeavour will still apply, and people will persist in trying to achieve justice and fairness in the context of some kind of sustainable environment. Unless you have some better suggestion?
Your reply bypasses my statement. I dont mean the planet will be sick 100 years from now, I dont mean the human condition will be difficult. i mean to say it, and we, will be dead.
I have to go to work now so I cant reply further, but Victor's stratement about externalities works for me.
Nuances can be overlooked in obtuse offerings. Try shooting in broad daylight.
Your words on the niche for Marxists in the "current exploitive model" are reassuring. I took them for the bad guys in the above, more complex rendition.
But I really believe that the introduction of environmental realities to the discussion of social change should not result in outrage. Old Karl embraced Darwin (in a rather strange fashion, perhaps), and real world events demand recognition, anytime.
Nuances can also be revealed through reading.
Jeez. You got me there.
Whoops! Duplicate post.
Obviously, Marx shared some of the essential assumptions of those modernist thinkers of his age regarding progress and industrialization. That is hardly extraordinary, nor is it a deep critique.
Monthly Review Editor John Bellamy Foster has written a number of books putting this claim under scrutiny. Foster rescues Marx's concept of metabolic rift to describe the relation of human beings to nature under capitalism and generates some useful results.
But I really believe that the introduction of environmental realities to the discussion of social change should not result in outrage. Old Karl embraced Darwin (in a rather strange fashion, perhaps), and real world events demand recognition, anytime.
If it was conducted within the context of social change. Instead we'll need to pick up the pace a little on the mouse wheel to enjoy the benefits of the new marketing strategies that in actuality take us just as far.
In other words, Eric Jantszens prediction that the housing bubble would be followed by an alternative energy bubble (because capitalism needs bubbles to replace the old business cycles) is bang on. What is more, the feel-good green movement is counter-productive to any effort aimed at feeding the hungry (1 billion and growing) of the world.
And Marxists today should not themselves make use of the deteriorating situation to win power ("influence"?) since it would only "perpetuate the cycle of exploitation, perhaps at a slower rate of decomposition, while allowig the more voracious entities (neo-cons) to regroup under another disguise."
Used to read such analogies in studying sociology, jack, but they always wound up being more useful in explaining the processes at work in my composters than useful social theory. Can you take at shot at explanation from the perspective of political economy?
Alternative energy will be a legitimate bubble, unlike housing. McMansions with 3 garages don't actually contribute any utility, cheap electricity that is too cheap to meter and that doesn't require dependence on other countries however will be a boon.
Ironic Wall Street will profit from this, as the collapse of petrol does not bode well for the USA and its petrodollar.
You say the power structure currently facing revolts is white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. There are many different forms of revolts that could take place. One of them is to just remove the adjective "white", and then we end up with the racially polyglot capitalist patriarchy. A good historical model would be the rise of catholics in the USA culminating in John Kennedy's election. I'm not sure if this would constitute a revolution rather than a mere evolution, and if it would change the lives of most of the world that much. The underlying system remains the same.
One of the reasons I made sure that I included Bell Hooks phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" is because it always manages to stick in the craw of those beholden to the ideologies that support it. Somewhere in there, there is always something that will offend. More often than not it is the racialist dynamics of opression which most often catch people up. One can tell a lot about the privileges that people are most keen on defending by those criticisms they most agressively object too. In this case, an analysis of race dynamics in global economic system.
You would like us to believe that racism has been set aside and can now be ingored, but a quick survey of the list of 100 top billionairs conclusively shows that the "polyglot" you are talking about is at best wishful thinking and at worst disinformation designed to distract attention away from the real dynamics inherent in our imperial legacy, and the overt fact that the great majority of marginalized and poorest persons are persons who are non-white.
Needless to say, all 5 of the top 5 richest individuals in the world are white, and only 22 of the 100 top billionaires hail from countries that are not white European, or countries whose dominant racial group is of white European origin. A great number of these non-white billionaires, indeed are the despots we set up among the Arabs nations, the rest are Asians, and none are of African origin.
White supremacist capitalist patriarchy is an excelent term, one that never fails to draw out key points of hidden ideological assumptions. Yes indeed racism is a central aspect of the means and mode of capitalist exploitation. Anyone who says it is not is deluded, or being deliberately obtuse.
I'm in a good mood, so I'll try one more time to explain, as you failed to understand my point.
Notice how you use the word, as opposed to "white anglo saxon protestant". In your definition of the dominant race you are including people who would not have been included 100 years ago; you are including Jews, French, Italians, and Latinos. That is an evolution in the system, an expanding circle. Over the next 20 years we will see more and more people from south east asia, very possible there will be as many south asians as there are east asians as whites in that list. The list of included ethnicities has been expanding and now it will be expanding some more. That much is clear and beyond debate. However, what isn't clear, imo, is does this mean a change in the underlying relations by which people experience the world?
Have you been under a rock these last couple of months, or what?
Points of instability in the overall class framework are not proof of momentum towards revolutionary conditions.
A cynical person might even argue that the ruling classes permit such low levels of "noise" to convince people the distribution of power is less lopsided than it actually is.
Which partially explains liberalism and social democrat movements as we know them.
Jack:
If it was conducted within the context of social change. Instead we'll need to pick up the pace a little on the mouse wheel to enjoy the benefits of the new marketing strategies that in actuality take us just as far.
George: You'll have to let me know what that one means, Jack. Don't want to be accused of failure to notice nuances again. The mouse wheel has to be code for ...we in Mouseland?
There's a continuum of "revolt" all the way from Raging Grannies to armed insurrection. And the best way to learn about 'revolts" is to study them.
Well, almost the best way. A famous leader wrote the following in the fall of 1917 in State and Revolution:
This pamphlet was written in August and September 1917. I had already drawn up the plan for the next, the seventh chapter, "The Experience of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917". Apart from the title, however, I had no time to write a single line of the chapter; I was "interrupted" by a political crisis--the eve of the October revolution of 1917. Such an "interruption" can only be welcomed; but the writing of the second part of this pamphlet ("The Experience of the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917") will probably have to be put off for a long time. It is more pleasant and useful to go through the "experience of revolution" than to write about it.The Author
Petrograd
November 30, 1917
This bud's for you George:
What goes up must come down
spinning wheel got to go round
Talking about your troubles it's a crying sin
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel spin
You got no money, and you, you got no home
Spinning wheel all alone
Talking about your troubles and you, you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn
Did you find a directing sign
on the straight and narrow highway?
Would you mind a reflecting sign
Just let it shine within your mind
And show you the colours that are real
Someone is waiting just for you
spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles, by the river side
Catch a painted pony
On the spinning wheel ride
Someone is waiting just for you
spinning wheel is spinning true
Drop all your troubles, by the river side
Ride a painted pony
Let the spinning wheel fly
The 'mouse' part was an add on. Point is, they lead nowhere, except that those riding one of them believe otherwise.
Just had to carry this quotation that Beltov delivered to another thread a couple of hours ago. It's from John Bellamy Foster's Adam's Fallacy and the Great Recession. Sort of sums it, I think:
Quote:All of this points to the fact that we live in an age when more than ever before the world demands a radical synthesis: of the kind potentially offered by political economy, economic sociology, and ecological economics. The closed world of make-believe neoclassical economic models, of Adam's Fallacy, has become a growing threat to the planet and all who live in it.
Adam's Fallacy and the Great Recession
This point is quite evident as well:
"We end by observing that there is no easy way out for humanity (and none for the system) under these circumstances, and that radical change is called for."
If only we had such an instrument for radical change that honestly leveled with the population in a manner consistent with the dire circumstances of the time.
Addressing something way up in the thread:
I don't know why people get so exercised over the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The phrase is in parallel and contrast to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie", which is what we have now. If you consider the latter to be democratic, the former would be no less democratic. It's a question of whose interests are served by the system. It's not about totalitarianism.
Well, let me qualify that: Of course I know why most people would find this expression disturbing. That's why I use it only in certain very limited circumstances! (As a matter of fact, I don't think I've ever used it.)
And by the way, I agree with what fiidel_castro says about FN and communism.
Sorry to hear that, Rosa. Take your time and please come back to this. As you know, your views are taken seriously here.
thank-you, unionist. I still haven't responded - just dashed something off. But I'm calming down and I'll try again tomorrow!
This point is quite evident as well:
"We end by observing that there is no easy way out for humanity (and none for the system) under these circumstances, and that radical change is called for."
If only we had such an instrument for radical change that honestly leveled with the population in a manner consistent with the dire circumstances of the time.
JUDITH: Reg, for God's sake, it's perfectly simple. All you've got to do is to go out of that door now, and try to stop the Romans' nailing him up! It's happening, Reg! Something's actually happening, Reg! Can't you understand?! Ohhh! [slam]
REG: Hm. Hm.
FRANCIS: Oh, dear.
REG: Hello. Another little ego trip for the feminists.
And I dont want either dictatorship. As above everyone is capable of genocidal tyranny. I dont want to give Mike Harris a US Governors power to execute other human beings. Also. I dont want to give it to the people I drink with. A stupid idea is a stupid idea, like dictatorship.
[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/artsNews/idUSTRE49F5MX20081016]Global crisis sends east Germans flocking to Marx[/url] 2008
A recent survey found 52 percent of eastern Germans believe the free market economy is "unsuitable" and 43 percent said they wanted socialism rather than capitalism, findings confirmed in interviews with dozens of ordinary easterners.
"We read about the 'horrors of capitalism' in school. They really got that right. Karl Marx was spot on," said Thomas Pivitt, a 46-year-old IT worker from east Berlin.
"I had a pretty good life before the Wall fell," he added. "No one worried about money because money didn't really matter. You had a job even if you didn't want one. The communist idea wasn't all that bad."
[url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/apr2009/pers-a17.shtml]53 percent of Americans believe capitalism to be superior to socialism: national telephone survey[/url] 2009
You say the power structure currently facing revolts is white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. There are many different forms of revolts that could take place. One of them is to just remove the adjective "white", and then we end up with the racially polyglot capitalist patriarchy. A good historical model would be the rise of catholics in the USA culminating in John Kennedy's election. I'm not sure if this would constitute a revolution rather than a mere evolution, and if it would change the lives of most of the world that much. The underlying system remains the same.
One of the reasons I made sure that I included Bell Hooks phrase "white supremacist capitalist patriarchy" is because it always manages to stick in the craw of those beholden to the ideologies that support it. Somewhere in there, there is always something that will offend. More often than not it is the racialist dynamics of opression which most often catch people up. One can tell a lot about the privileges that people are most keen on defending by those criticisms they most agressively object too. In this case, an analysis of race dynamics in global economic system.
You would like us to believe that racism has been set aside and can now be ingored, but a quick survey of the list of 100 top billionairs conclusively shows that the "polyglot" you are talking about is at best wishful thinking and at worst disinformation designed to distract attention away from the real dynamics inherent in our imperial legacy, and the overt fact that the great majority of marginalized and poorest persons are persons who are non-white.
Needless to say, all 5 of the top 5 richest individuals in the world are white, and only 22 of the 100 top billionaires hail from countries that are not white European, or countries whose dominant racial group is of white European origin. A great number of these non-white billionaires, indeed are the despots we set up among the Arabs nations, the rest are Asians, and none are of African origin.
White supremacist capitalist patriarchy is an excelent term, one that never fails to draw out key points of hidden ideological assumptions. Yes indeed racism is a central aspect of the means and mode of capitalist exploitation. Anyone who says it is not is deluded, or being deliberately obtuse.
I'm in a good mood, so I'll try one more time to explain, as you failed to understand my point.
Notice how you use the word, as opposed to "white anglo saxon protestant". In your definition of the dominant race you are including people who would not have been included 100 years ago; you are including Jews, French, Italians, and Latinos. That is an evolution in the system, an expanding circle. Over the next 20 years we will see more and more people from south east asia, very possible there will be as many south asians as there are east asians as whites in that list. The list of included ethnicities has been expanding and now it will be expanding some more. That much is clear and beyond debate. However, what isn't clear, imo, is does this mean a change in the underlying relations by which people experience the world?
The French and the Latinos, by which you mean people of Spanish decent, are representatives of two of the most powerful imperial nations of the colonial period, whose societies are all well established as part of white European dominant culture worldwide. This is true even though they may have been stygmatized by other ethnic groups within the European milieu who were their direct competitors, and eventually beaten out by a slightly more dominant Anglo-Saxon society more recently. The same can be said of the Portuguese and the Russians. Other European ethnic groups like the Italians, Swiss and even the Ashkenazi Jews all retain collateral benefits through their participation in white European society, as white people.
As for your theories about a future "balancing out" I don't see how that relates to inequity now, or the fact that the status quo as it now rests, is based on grossly racist exploitation, past and present, which reproduces the inequity with each succeeding generation. How do you propose this balancing out is supposed to occur? And for that matter for what reason should it happen in the future? Why not now?
Slumberjack:
If only we had such an instrument for radical change that honestly leveled with the population in a manner consistent with the dire circumstances of the time.
How about this.
Offer to lower their taxes. Guaranteed to make the "dire circumstances" even more dire. Shake the prols and lumpen out of their euphoria brought about by a "shop till you drop" preoccupation.
I saw someone make mention of [b][url=http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175086]Fordlandia[/b][/url] upthread. Thought I'd post this link for intersted readers
So let's have some Marxist replies to the question here, chop-chop!
I'm not a Marxist, can I still play?
I'ev made many a comment on the capitalist setup and posed questions asking why it's still referred to as such. So why not, PB? Give 'er!
The Fordlandia book looks very interesting. I have read about this social and capitalist experiment in other places and it is very peculiar. It was the precursor to the hostile capitalist takeover of most South American countries. It was right around this time that the US looked very hard at the South for empire expansion, I believe. Fordlandia was the catalyst in many ways and it failed miserably, which would foreshadow the 1980's and 90's in Latin America. What is also forgotten is that "free-market" capitalism has failed tremendously and not only in Brazil but throughout the entire South. Capitalism exploited the economies and the governments of South America by exporting Milton Friedman and the Chicago-style of absolutist free-market capitalism. No government intervention in any way was the absolutist-goal. This was also hypocritical and it had to take place in the South due to the restraints within the US system. The US would never allow its government to be totally over-ridden by purist laissez-faire economics and to this day it never has been. The US remembers the crash of 1929. The US government remains in control of the market in many ways and it has not let go of its grip; the trillion-dollar bailout demonstrates this. South America was an experiment and it failed miserably in most aspects. I cannot get into every detail but Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Guatemala, etc, all have demonstrated the after-effects of capitalism gone wrong. It is no wonder there is today a great Marxist and anti-capitalist push in Latin America.
Just a side note, Greg Grandin also wrote Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism and this is also a very well-written book. Great background on the capitalist experiments in Latin America.
Read The Comming Insurrection by The Invisible Commitee
I can understand their wanting to remain invisible.
What about the Lennonist posters?
They haven't said a thing yet about John. Strangely, because Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club would have been impossible without him.
Hey, I am totally Lennonist, I have all his solo records on original vinyl from Apple Records. I cannot stand McCartney at all and I think he is vastly overrated on his own as a writer. You may also call me a Harrisonist but I always say no to Ringo.
Long thread.
