Comments on: The End is Near?

By: Jurriaan Bendien

Jurriaan Bendien — Thu, 15 May 2008 22:05:40 +0000

The reference by Mark Jones was not to me (Jurriaan Bendien) but presumably to “Julien Pierrehumbert”. I was not a subscriber of Crashlist at that time, either under my own name or a pseudonym. I do not pretend to make a lot of predictions, but my own analysis of various events and trends is publicly accessible from the mailing list archives, and thus can be checked retrospectively for their quality. Mark was a good communist, but qua theoretical approach we had very little in common. I do not believe “the end is near” and I think Henryk Grossman’s theory is so abstract that it is either true by definition, or empirically counterfactual. My main criticisms of Henryk Grossmann’s theory as explanation of capital accumulation are available on OPE-L list.

By: MFB

MFB — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:42:27 +0000

The problem with believing that economic crisis is good for leftism, is that economic crisis has actually always been good for capitalism. It keeps the workers down, it facilitates radical right-wing approaches (as someone earlier said) and so forth.

Of course, if an economic crisis coincides with the development of a strong left-wing political movement, that strong left-wing political movement can take advantage of the crisis to make the point that its policies will be more effective at resolving the crisis than any other.

Is there now such a strong left-wing political movement in the West?

By: sharkofgod

sharkofgod — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:06:16 +0000

Side note: I agree that socioeconomic conditions are ripe for the socialist argument. Between the American recession, the rampant, revolution-producing rise in the cost of food prices, and the effects of job-loss, rising oil prices, rising food prices, and home-losses of the American proletariat, we are at a situation where we are increasingly seeing the need for an alternate explanatory framework. For the first time in a long time, the majority of Americans are beginning to see the evidence of Marxist class analysis as their debts get called in and their artificial welfare level goes down. One practical consideration, however, is this.

This system, obviously, is designed such that the poor proletariat class is the first to lose jobs and wealth in a business crisis. Consequently, they will be the first to suffer until the establishment of a new system, i.e. they will suffer until a successful revolution. It is a matter of practical necessity for us socialists to work towards the contemporary establishment of communities or communes that are relatively self-sufficient and immune from economic crises so as to provide save havens for the poor and the dispossessed. Just a thought.

By: SGuy

SGuy — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:53:17 +0000

Marc Im not really sure what your saying but it sounds like Bill Cosby blame the victim. As for the personal insight part, I have a friend who almost died during Katrina, I try to make arguments here beyond the personal.
As for Ray, your individualist exhorts are non-sequitors, the real world marketplace is dominated by corporations that rely upon substantial state support. Your philosophy predates Marx, so even if we are pushing the radio to use your metaphor, you’re pushing street theatre.

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:49:30 +0000

For SGuy:
As a former New Orleanian, who saw the city multi-angled by being a white boy married to a Creole, I find your cartoon reference to N.O. conversely apropos. One of the ongoing problems in New Orleans is that many lower class blacks, working and not, have inappropriate expectations regarding their life situation in many ways, inappropriate because it perpetuates the ongoing downward spiral.

By: Charles

Charles — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:36:18 +0000

who bet left-liberal economist Max Sawicky a case of Lagavulin single-malt scotch in 1987

^^^^
FYI It was more like 2000

By: ray

ray — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:52:42 +0000

perplexed closet free-marketeer, i enjoyed that, no closet here i work in the dynamic real world. One would never hope for the return of the depression days, the food queues, the reliance on all things government. No embrace the dynamic of the individual, that individual who with a conscience and moral compass sees opportunity and is able to without the baggage of state or structure as a barrier moves forth and seizes the opportunity. The conflict between class and money is often touted as the barrier of the working class. Well wake up and use the system, its there to be used.
The effect of relinquishing ones life to a struggle of subsistence is to forever limit those that follow to the same. What parent doesn’t want their child to achieve at least as much and hopefully better. Yet the defeated socialist would have one believe that the system is stopping all that follow, because they were not born before it ?. We have moved on just as the photocopier has from the carbon paper and colour from black and white. Stop looking at a black and white system and look with all your energy at a new system, It is easy to find faults with a product so complex, however it is our collective responsibilities to seek a better solution with more fair and equitable outcomes. Do not look for a collective state of a conflicted economy battling itself. educate and empower the individual.
cheers

By: Avent

Avent — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:51:54 +0000

@Ray - “With a present birthrate of 1.24 they hardly can have an excess consumption problem.”, “There is an expectation built into the human system.” - vacuous cliches from a perplexed closet free-marketeer?

By: SGuy

SGuy — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:35:12 +0000

simplistic socialist nanny state? Im reminded of a cartoon I saw about Hurricane Katrina in which people in a drowned New Orleans are told they don’t live in no nanny state. Personally I find the whole nanny state thing a cliche and its ignorant to state that that is what a real marxist wants, marxists look forward to the withering away of the state. Although from time to time I am moved to say, as anarchist Noam Chomsky would agree, that a nanny state is better then a dead beat dad state.

By: Susil Gupta

Susil Gupta — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:12:02 +0000

Grossman’s “The Law of Capitalist Breakdown” is a fundamental and very neglected work of Marxist theory and, along with Lenin’s Imperialism and Kilferding’s Finanze-Kapital, its is a key work do understand Capital. However, it is NOT a complete theory of crisis and breakdown – as Grossman himself states. That is found, as an sketch, in other works. It is an initial exposition of the basic mechanism, just as Volume 1 of Capital is only an exposition of capitalism in its essence. If you try to develop an analysis of the current crisis on the basis of Grossman you will fail by distortion.

There is an additional problem. Because of globalization, the empirical and quantitive argument in Grossmann can no longer be verified.

Susil Gupta lozellslaw@btinternet.com