From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Mar 12 2006 - 11:17:41 EST
Jurriaan, I don't disagree with your points. So what I'll write here could be thought of as additions. There is a culture among many Marxists which celebrates and looks forward to and projects crisis. Why celebrate crisis? The presumption seems to be that crisis will hasten the revolutionary process. So, in a sense, the 'pessimism' associated with continually forecasting crises could be thought of as being the flip side of 'revolutionary optimism." Sometimes this thesis is also accompanied by claims about "decadence". Indeed, there is a group on the Net which was formed to: "discuss the hypothesis that the capitalist mode of production has become decadent on a world scale, i.e. incapable of any further positive contribution to the development of humanity." (on that group, the following web site was recommended: http://www.endangeredphoenix.com .) So, the ideology of capitalist decline goes, at least in some cases, hand-in-hand, with beliefs about decadence. I don't really see the usefulness or historical validity of referring to a special phase of capitalism as being decadent. Bourgeois decadence has existed at all points in capitalist history, hasn't it? And, before capitalism, there were plenty of examples of decadence under feudalism and slavery both while these modes of production were on their ascendancy and decline. Further, I don't really see the connection asserted between decadence and the (alleged) inability of capitalism to make "any further contribution to the development of humanity." Certainly there are lots of examples of bourgeois decadence today (New York City is a great place to live if you want to observe and catalog some of those many examples) and historically (e.g. consider the lifestyles of the "robber barons") and while we could object on moral and ecological and humanitarian grounds to the conspicuous consumption and lifestyle of the bourgeoisie, why would that decadence preclude the possibility of further increase in the forces of production under capitalism? [Those who make this claim about decadence have also highlighted what happened to New Orleans. While what happened there could be thought of as representing a crass disregard for (working class, poor, and minority) life, this hardly represents something new, does it? When in US history, for instance, would the state have responded better to the needs of the poor in urban areas? It could be thought of as being decadent in a sense, but not in a special sense associated with only the current epoch (supposedly of 'decline') of capitalism.] Decadence -- just another over-used and imprecise word used by Marxists intended to convey nothing particularly precise. In any event, _even if_ capitalism was decadent in the sense above, would that usher in by itself a revolutionary movement and transformation? I think not. The Marxian narrative -- at least for many Marxists -- hasn't really advanced significantly beyond the summarization of "the general conclusion" which Marx wrote about in the "Preface" to _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 13 2006 - 00:00:01 EST