On 6/29/07, Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess Paul is right. His way of looking at the historical viability
of capitalism, growth, and efficiency is completely at odds with mine.
I will answer telegraphically and let the chips fall where they may.
The historical viability of a social structure (e.g. a set of
relations of production) cannot be determined against some universal,
given once and for all, absolute parameter. Historical viability is,
well, historical. It evolves. A social structure that is viable
under certain conditions, may not be viable under different
conditions. Ultimately, the historical viability of a social
structure resolves itself politically. Ultimately, it's people in
historical contexts who determine with their actions whether a given
social structure is viable or not.
here's where Michael Perelman's distinction plays a role: capitalism
might be more efficient or viable or competitive than other systems
or modes of production _right now_. That is, it might be more
efficient in static terms. But it can also be dynamically inefficient
(and is). After destroying all other modes of production in its path,
it destroys life on earth.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your
own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
