Julio Huato, who has just been at a conference in Caracas on responses
from the South to the global economic crisis, asked if I would send to
the list some comments I made the other night. So, basically here's what
I can reconstruct from my notes:
I have three short questions to introduce into our discussion which have
been provoked by the presentations we've just heard. These questions are
based on two assumptions: (one) capitalism does not collapse by itself
and (two) in the absence of agents, subjects, popular forces, capital
will sooner or later exit the crisis restructured.
My first question is how exactly can capitalism restructure itself
successfully? I stress here that I'm not asking you to act as advisors
for the capitalist system. Rather, I think it is important to understand
the strength of the capitalist system; in other words, it's important to
respect the enemy tactically.
My second question is how can agents and subjects act to prevent a
capitalist restructuring? And who are those agents?
My third question is can capitalist states prevent capitalist
restructuring or do they serve as agents of capitalist restructuring?
Now, those are the questions that Julio wanted me to post.
Unfortunately, he has returned to New York and I didn't get a chance to
talk with him about why he wanted these posted. However, since my voice
recognition program seems to be working well, let me add an excerpt from
some comments that I made the following day (in the same vein):
I think the distinction that we have to make is to recognize that there
are two paths.
The first is a capitalist path, the restructuring of capitalism. The
second is a socialist path, one which creates conditions for building
socialism; and one of the most significant of those conditions is
creating conditions in which there is mobilization of subjective forces,
masses, the accumulation of popular forces.
The first path relies upon the capitalist state and reproduces illusions
in capitalism; it reinforces the idea of capitalism as practical. The
second path creates consciousness of the nature of capitalism; it
recognizes that crisis is an opportunity, an opportunity to intensify
the battle of ideas.
The first path, the capitalist path, is the path of Mercosur and a Bank
of the South that reproduces the character of existing international
agencies. The second path is the path of Alba and of a Bank of the South
based on new relations building upon solidarity.
The question we have before us is what path will be taken? We need to
focus on these two paths in our discussions and to put this distinction
at the center of our final statement. Not to point to the path for
social transformation is to default upon our responsibilities.
[something that may not be clear to people who were not there is that
the the punchline in both cases related to the question of capitalist
states, Mercosur and some ideas about the character of the bank of the
South; in other words, in these discussions in terms of Latin American
responses to the crisis, where do Brazil and Argentina fit?]
okay, one more long day of the conference (where we will work on the
final statement and presumably talk to Chávez about this) and then
Monday another one starts -- one organized by samir amin for the social
forum on alternatives--and goes on for a week.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development'
Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
Caracas, Venezuela
fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
