|From:||shaista husain <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Tuesday, November 08, 2011 10:06:41 PM|
|Subject:||Re: [september17discuss] Re: OWS: Yes, we are anti-capitalist!|
Rob, despite all my disagreements with you--i must say here you are
correct--- Snafu i like your ideas but to underlie your ideas with a
natural law of scarcity --this is the easiest and first polemic marx
destroyed-- of the conservative malthusian economists... the reserve
army of labor is popular control that is peculiar to the capitalist
mode of production.
"The error of Malthus and the classical economists was to focus their
analysis of capital accumulation and its effects upon specific sectors
of production instead of looking at the relationship between total
social capital and the total labor force. This perspective leads them
to confuse the laws that regulate that general ratio with the laws
which regulate the allocation of specific sectors of the labor force
to specific sectors of production (Marx, 1970:638-639).
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:41 PM, rob hollander <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I like Andy's tiger. You remove the tiger's teeth -- and be very careful not
> to forget to declaw him too -- but let him keep his legs under your harness
> and his hunger.
> Which leads to the anti-hunger Malthusianism that the green movement has
> managed to legitimize. I don't see that Malthusianism is any more true now
> than it was when it first appeared. I would not underestimate the ingenuity
> of human invention, if only it were cultivated with quality education
> accessible to all, instead of for just the few, and turned to human
> problems, rather than to corporate interests. There is the place for big
> government where capital falls short, and that's a notion older than
> socialism, it's the social contract. It's also called democracy -- making
> your gov't work for everyone.
> The answer to rapacious capitalism has got to be democracy. That's what OWS
> seems to be at bottom all about. We've got a plutocracy of thieves, it
> doesn't work for us, we've had enough of it; we want our government back.
> I do agree with snafu that capitalism is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. But what
> happens when you call out a Ponzi scheme? Everyone is left destitute.
> I like the commons notion. There's something Georgist in it -- pool the
> social resources including all land. Georgism doesn't cure capitalism, but
> it wouldn't hurt.
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Lauren <email@example.com> wrote:
>> What alternative has even been allowed to run unimpeded?
>> Socialism? Social-capitalism is merely a stopgap to make the european
>> and latin american working class shut up.
>> Communism? Communism in Russia died in 1921. Maoism is confucianism
>> with a coat of red paint.
>> Anarchism? Yes, I guess being beaten by the combined might of Hitler,
>> Stalin, Mussolini and Franco, despite there being a war between each
>> other, could count as an objective measurement of failure, assuming
>> that your ethical standards are those of a jackbooted thug.
>> Where is the success of capitalism in Africa? Why do we keep being
>> reminded about the kulaks, but never about the millions who died
>> during the rubber boom, never about the millions who died during the
>> dust bowl, never about the millions who died because of Britain's
>> laissez-mourir approach to famines in India, Ireland, Africa?
>> Capitalist wealth is the wealth of empire. It's the illusion brought
>> about by concentration, by homogenization of societies that used to be
>> heterogenous even there; wealthy countries with wealthy regions with
>> wealthy cities with wealthy neighborhoods. Hey, some of the country
>> doesn't have electricity and running water? It's okay, we have
>> billionaires in the capital who are really enjoying the success of
> Rob Hollander
> Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Development
> 622 E 11, #10
> NYC, 10009
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|