From: Dave Zachariah (davez@kth.se)
Date: Mon Aug 11 2008 - 04:31:18 EDT
Friedman's quote is a Marxist, or at least Leninist, political strategy. Would the Bolsheviks have been anywhere near power if it were not for the social crisis that resulted from WWI? Similarly, the demographic crisis of the 1930s in Sweden paved the way for social-democratic family policies. I think the underlying theory of Friedman's quote is correct. During crisis the institutional barriers to social change are weakened. Moreover, the material practices that affirm and sanction the dominant ideologies are weakened. Therefore new ideas that address the crisis can win ground. This is a fact that can and has been exploited by both the Right and the Left. When crises occur there are political forces ready to seize the opportunity of radical change. Of course, their methods of political mobilisation for change differ. Unlike the Age of Catastrophe (1914-47) the Left is no longer in the forefront with concrete proposals for change. //Dave Z > > > > Dogan asked: > > WHAT IS MARXIST IN THIS? > Dave Z wrote: > I have a comment rather than a proper topic. I recently listened to a > talk by Naomi Klein on her theory of "shock doctrine". The central > argument rests on a quote by Milton Friedman: > "Only a crisis --- actual or perceived -- - produces real change. > When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the > ideas that are lying around. . . . Our basic function [is] to > develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and > available until the politically impossible" > Doesn't this strike you as a very Marxist theory of crises and > political action? > > _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2008 - 00:00:07 EDT