Jim Devine wrote, >I've studied crisis theory a bit (and seemingly a bit more than Robin). >Some of the theories are wrong, some are right, often in different >situations. In my work, I've tried to synthesize the valid aspects of them. >I won't bore people with the details. But the key point is that (1) >capitalist crises _are_ inevitable (in a sense that is explained below) but >(2) socialism is not. The latter actually requires activist intervention, >because it requires the growth of a mass movement of the sort that Robin >writes, a movement that does not arise -- or win -- automatically in any way. .. . . Given the inevitability of capitalist crises (emphasis on the plural) and the non-inevitablity of socialism, would it be possible to clearly outline the conditions of under which stabilization and resumption of dynamic capitalist development become untenable? In other words, is there any basis (other than dashed hopes) for discounting the possibility of a terminal or permanent crisis? The expression "socialism or barbarism" implies just such a permanent crisis, otherwise it would have been "socialism, barbarism or a new regime of accumulation". Regards, Tom Walker ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
