From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Mon Mar 13 2006 - 09:27:11 EST
> The concept of crisis does not necessarily imply decline. Hi Paul C, I agree, but the point remains that many (but certainly not all) Marxian conceptions of crisis also claim that capitalism has become decadent. Trotsky, for example, as far back as 1938 referred to the "death agony of capitalism". Can we all agree that capitalism has _not_ been in "death agony" since 1938? If the post-WW2 boom, for example, was capitalism in agony then capitalists were agonizing their way to the bank with high profits and international capitalist expansion. We should know now, for instance, that fascism does not necessarily imply the decline of capitalism. We should know that global imperialist wars do not necessarily imply the decline of capitalism. We should know that mass poverty and ecological destruction does not necessarily imply the decline of capitalism. "Peak oil" does not necessarily imply the decline of capitalism. Neo-Liberalism does not necessarily imply the decline of capitalism. Et. Etc. Etc. On the decadence list, they discussed whether Islamic fundamentalism is a manifestation of capitalist decline. I think not. After all, we have the experience of the Iranian revolution to look to for us to see that an Islamic state is consistent with the growth of capitalism. > Suppose that we look 30 to 40 years on, then we can expect > to see on a world scale the sort of conjuntural balance > that existed in western europe at the end of the 60s. I don't think it's wise to make projections about what will happen to capitalism over such a lengthy time period. A lot of unexpected developments can happen which can lead to capitalist growth or stagnation and protracted crisis. The key, ultimately, will rest with the "gravediggers." In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 14 2006 - 00:00:01 EST