Jim, don't underestimate the importance of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels
there would be virtually no surplus value; thus, no capitalism.
Jim Devine wrote:
> I wrote: >>actually-existing capitalism depends heavily on fossil fuels,
> but does capitalism in general? though capitalism is amazingly inflexible
> on issues of preserving class privilege and dictatorship, it is also
> amazingly flexible when it comes to adapting to disaster (like that of the
> 1930s). <<
>
> Charles writes: >The specific flexibility of capitalism in adapting to the
> crisis of the 1930's was to blast the hell out of actually-existing
> socialisms and actually existing national liberation movements in its
> neo-colonies for 60 years. It won't be able to shoot its way out of earthly
> exhaustion of fossil fuels, if this latter fact develops as true. <
>
> I don't see why the rise in the cost of fossil fuels can't be dealt with by
> intensifying labor and cutting wages. Or by economizing on fossil fuels,
> using modern technology.
>
> Louis writes: >I have no idea what "capitalism in general" is supposed to
> mean.<
>
> The phrase "capitalism in general" refers to a commodity-producing mode of
> production in which labor-power is a commodity, where workers have no
> choice but to sell their labor-power on the market though they are exempted
> from the direct and overt coercion of the form that characterized slavery
> and serfdom (Marx's definition of "capitalism" as far as I can tell).
> Actually-existing (and -existed) capitalism refers to the way in which this
> mode of production has worked on in practice (often in different ways in
> different countries, though the overriding tendency is toward homogeneity)
> during the last 300 years or so. As Paul Sweezy points out in the first
> chapter of his magisterial THEORY OF CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT, Marx himself
> worked at different levels of abstraction. Marx saw the actually-existing
> English capitalism of his day as being the closest empirical representation
> of capitalism in general, a pretty abstract concept, and so used examples
> from England to illustrate his theory. But that doesn't make the 19th
> century English economic system the same as capitalism.
>
> Unless you reject all abstract thinking, it makes sense to differentiate
> between different levels of abstraction -- to choose another example,
> between "socialism in general" and actually-existed (and existing)
> socialisms. The problem occurs either when the former concepts are reified
> (treated as a real thing in empirical reality) or when the theory is
> totally ignored. Following the first principles of Marx's materialist
> conception of history, what happens _in practice_ is what really counts, so
> that actually-existing (or -existed) capitalism and/or socialisms must be
> the center of attention. (For most people, there's no choice on this
> matter, especially when the labor movement and similar counter-hegemonic
> movements are weak, so that it's hard to think about how things could be
> different.) But concepts of "capitalism in general" and "socialism in
> general" help us understand the real world better than simply describing
> that world (empiricism) or denouncing that world (moralism).
>
> In any event, I was using the distinction between capitalism in general and
> actually-existing capitalism to make the point that even though the past is
> prologue, things often change in unpredictable ways. Capitalism isn't
> necessarily doomed by an energy crisis.
>
> > This is the same kind of intellectual exercise as asking whether
> capitalism requires slavery. Perhaps if we phrase the question in terms of
> whether capitalism REQUIRED slavery (or oil) rather than whether it
> REQUIRES it, we'd be better off. We only know the historical capitalism
> that has existed--trying to come up with hypothetical examples of another
> capitalism of our imagination seems besides the point.<
>
> The problem is that if one assumes that just because capitalism
> historically _required_ slavery or oil it _always_ requires slavery or oil,
> that makes one think that simply removing slavery or oil from the picture
> will destroy capitalism. If you argue that just because capitalism
> historically required slavery or oil, it doesn't always require slavery or
> oil, then you're accepting my point.
>
> BTW, I'm still wondering why the "energy crisis" is the focus of attention,
> when real oil prices are still pretty low by historical standards. Again, I
> think the environmental crisis deserves much more attention.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chico, CA 95929
530-898-5321
fax 530-898-5901
