[ show plain text ]
I agree with the thrust of Jurriaan's comment, particularly with regard to
"crisis". The last time capitalism was in a crisis was the 1930s
Depression and WWII, but the term is always being thrown out. I would not
protest its use in, say, 1968 when, if I remember correctly, French
capitalism was under such attack that the French franc had little value
across the French border, nor recently for South Africa, and other such
largely country-specific crises. Neither then nor now in hindsight do I
feel that U.S. capitalism itself was in crisis as a result of the
anti-Vietnam protests nor the so-called "oil crisis".
I don't know that the word "revolution" is so much overused.
Jurriaan's "class conflict" versus "class struggle", elaborated in his
posting, seems useful.
Paul Z.
***********************************************************************
Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, web site
******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
On 01/09/00 at 09:31 AM, Jurriaan Bendien <djjb99@worldonline.nl> said:
>Linguistically, the term "class struggle" has in my opinion suffered the
>same amount of abuse as the term "crisis" or the term "revolution". It's
>an overused word. I prefer myself to use the term "class struggle" only
>when a real class struggle is occurring somewhere, to use the term
>"crisis" when a real crisis is occurring, and the term "revolution" for
>when a real social revolution is occuring.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:06 EST