[OPE-L:2068] Re: the nature of a commodity and the meaning of class struggle

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@acsu.buffalo.edu)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2000 - 09:43:19 EST

[ 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