At 13/06/02 14:15 +0000, you wrote: >I don't think anyone in Solidarity, Kim Moody included, would deny that >accumulation is global, that the effects of events in all parts of the >global economy have to be understood holistically, that analyses of the >sort presented below about coffee and Rwanda are useful and necessary, and >that the struggles of the people in the South/Third World matter, and not >just because they serve as a reserve army of labor (though they do that). >The idea that militant trade unionism is a good idea here in the advanced >countries, and important to engage here for US radicals, doesn't seem to >me inconsistent with this. Nor does the fact that globalization, though >real, has limits. So the swipes at Soli--and I should say we are really >more diverse in view thatn Steve suggest--are gratuitious here. Let's >stick to the issues. jks
The issues I suggest are an issue - the system: how does the total global system or capitalism work dynamically as a system? I do not see that Steve's remarks are fairly called "swipes" - they are balanced criticisms that bring out different tendencies, and would not be out of order if they were made about a member of this list. I have come back on this question because I want to ask how is the global economy to be viewed holistically if only its component parts are seen and without an overarching sense of its dynamic? And if the law of value is a superfluous concept in marxism, what concept should underly a holistic approach to the present system of global capitalism? Is Marx's "absolute general law of capitalist accumulation" (Capital Vol I Ch 25 Section 4) applicable on a world scale: the greater the functioning capital, the greater the reserve army? Chris Burford
