From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Mon Dec 06 2004 - 08:50:51 EST
> I always thought that this way you could explain the > possibility of reformism in some periods (at the use value > dimension), while stressing the inevitability of class antagonism at > the value dimension. > You are however right in this, that I am strongly against any > Zusammenbruchtheorie, catastrophe theory. So I very much like > Grossmann, Mattick Sr., Luxemburg, etc, but I have never bought this > point. Riccardo, Catastrophe theory could be used as a rationalization _for_ reformism. I.e. if there is some sort of automatic mechanism that inevitably drives capitalism towards economic catastrophe and social-political crisis from which it is incapable of overcoming (even though there are counter-tendencies that can delay for a long historical period this result), then -- so long as the catastrophe isn't immanent -- *why not become a reformist*? If, however, the future of capitalism is uncertain (i.e. mechanisms that assert inevitability do not exist) and whether there will or will not be an anti-capitalist revolution depends on the self- organization and activity of the working class, then this constitutes a strong argument for revolutionary organization and activism. In any event, reformism is not primarily a 'theory-driven' political movement. Rather, reformist theories are primarily _ex post_ rationalizations for reformism and opportunism. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Dec 08 2004 - 00:00:01 EST