Carrol Cox wrote: > For nearly a century and a half (up to post-war years) the mass of the > working class as well as the mass of the (potential) reserve army (small > farmers in the u.s. plus peasantry in nations with large migrations to > the u.s.) == workers and potential workers -- lived in [pretty] dire > straits, those conditions be the base of the radical movements that > emerged (but never really got anywhere). In other words, capitalism can > get along pretty well with an impoverished mass of workers and > unemployed.
Right. In China, for example, capitalism does pretty well despite low wages, "Dickensian" conditions, etc. > That is a fifth (I lost track of the number) alternative in response to > growing unemployment. I gather that the bulk of marxists still cling to > the idea that misery breeds resistance... I don't think that they do -- but someone should hire Gallup to do a poll, to see whether or not Marxists "cling" to the idea that "the worse the better." (This was a slogan or at least an attitude of the old German CP. According to the Wikipedia, Nikolay Chernyshevsky, the non-Marxian author of the novel "What Is to Be Done?," may have originated this slogan.) > When Luxemburg coined her slogan, "Socialism or Barbarianism," she was > [not] simply urging the [troops] on -- she believed (rightly I think) that > in a world in which the major force was contingency, barbarism was at > least as likely, perhaps more likely, than [socialism]. > > I think the last 100 years have confirmed her fears. Of course, there's also "socialist barbarism," as seen (for example) in the1930s in the USSR. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
