>> . . . In general, Marxism in 1999 makes these kinds of observations: 1. Development is producing an ecological crisis. . . . 2. Capitalism produces alienation. . . . 3. Capitalism produces reserve armies of the unemployed. This is the general explanation of revolutionary assaults in Latin America. The Shining Path, the FSLN, the FMLN and the FARC are all symptoms of capitalism's inability to transform landless peasants into wage-earners. This is why it is a mistake, as some Marxists commit, to support the growth of capitalism in Latin America as a necessary prelude to socialism. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, this formula made sense. It does not today.. . . Hope this helps >>>>> Indeed it does. In fact, I agree w/70% of it. The inevitability and proliferation of crises is not in question. *The* Crisis is something else. The question of the dependency of marxist economics other than your own on de-development, and empirical support for this emphasis, remains. Unemployment bespeaks a basic deficiency in output, aside from how such output is used or what its social value is. At some level persistent unemployment connotes stagnation, or de-development. Short of that, one could still imagine revolution, but also anticipate the indefinite sustainability of capitalism. mbs
