Of course the progressive aspects of capitalism are such that they are fettered by the nature of capitalism itself and as you say may, in a sense, turn into something that is reactionary. Just to quote briefly from a piece by Ed Finn in the most recent CCPA Monitor p. 5 (Feb. 99) "Global Capitalism Most Barbaric Economic System in History" " What do I have against capitalism indeed! Am I supposed to applaud and endorse an economic system in which 225 billionaires have more money that the two billion poorest people? In which just 4% of the wealth of those 225 individuals--about $40 billion a year -- would be enought to eliminate world hunger and provide adequate health care and basic education for everyone. " The progressive aspect of capitalism here is that the system has generated the resources to eliminate world hunger; and provide adequate health care, and basic education for everyone. What is required is a socialist revolution to make this potential a reality. Traditional Marxists surely argue that it is these progressive features of capitalism that can only serve the general good and not class interests through revolutionary change. It is the contradiction between productive forces that capitalism creates and the inability of capitalism to fully develop them to satisfy human needs such as those mentioned, that provides the material basis of socialism and the motivation for revolution. To see no progressive aspects to capitalism is wholly undialectical, black and white thinking, and contrary to anything in traditional Marxist traditions. Maybe Louis has been Rethinking Marxism :) . Cheers, Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ken, > > I think your comments are well taken on one level. It is true that in one > sense, in one context, the Profit<---->Power imperatives and dynamics of > capitalism do indeed lead to risktaking andn investments that lead to cures > for various illnesses, jobs, incomes etc etc; but those same imperatives > produce dynamics of new diseases for which new cures are needed, general > commodification of people and sacreds, meagre and dehamizing jobs and > exploitative income levels. > > New technologies however sophisticated and with the potential to do good, if > held by a few for the benefit of the few, or if used for evil, represent not > progress but an even more threatening potential for descent total destruction. > So when taken in a wider context, what appears to be "progressive" in the > abstract may well be dangerous and destructive when taken in historical > context or in the context of how ripe that capitalism is today relative to the > capitalism of the time of Marx; part of Marx's praise for capitalism was > relative to the forms of bondage and exploitation of previous systems. But > Marx also clearly noted that for each blessing capitalism brings, it brings at > least one, often more curse and that the "blessing" is often a mask and > instrument for the curse. > > So when we get to net score, I have to see the negatives outweighing--and even > choking off new--positives or possibilities for positives. No doubt capitalism > does bring some wonders relative to previous systems, but if the power grids > go or during extreme natural disasters for example, the "primitives" survive > as it is life as usual, and the "civilized" ones freak out, implode and turn > into some version of Mad Max. That is why Ghandi Ji when asked "What do you > think about Western Civilization" he answered "It sounds like a good idea." > > Jim Craven > > In a message dated 2/9/99 9:24:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << Subj: [PEN-L:3145] Re: Nigeria > Date: 2/9/99 9:24:38 PM Pacific Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Hanly) > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You don't believe that capitalism has progressive aspects? I thought you > were a > Marxist? > How can you hold both that capitalism has no progressive aspects and that you > are a Marxist at one and the same time? THere are numerous passages in Marx > filled with praises of capitalism's progressive features, of the manner in > which > it releases the productive forces of nature and frees people from feudal > bonds. > . > > CHeers , Ken Hanly > > Louis Proyect wrote: > > > Doug: > > >Seeing the world in black and white makes writing polemic a lot easier, > but > > >it's not very helpful. I was reacting to your preposterous claim that > > >Nigeria has seen "plenty of investment," which is why the phrase was in > > >quotes. Nigeria has not had "plenty of investment," it's had too little > and > > >of a very distorted sort. Here's the full exchange. I especially like the > > >way you forgot to quote the "It's been plundered" part. > > > > Doug, we have political differences that no amount of quoting in context or > > out of context will change. You believe that capitalism has some > > progressive aspects, while I believe that it has none. That is what the > > debate is about. > > > > Louis Proyect > > > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html) > > > > > ----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- > Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Received: from rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (rly-yc03.mail.aol.com [172.18.149.35]) > Received: from galaxy.csuchico.edu (galaxy.CSUChico.EDU [132.241.82.21]) > by rly-yc03.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0) > Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:24:32 -0500 (EST) > Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:28:43 -0800 (PST) > Received: from smtp1.mts.net (smtp1.mts.net [205.200.16.74]) > Received: from mb.sympatico.ca (brndas06-p88.mts.net [205.200.58.246]) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:26:28 -0600 > From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MIME-Version: 1.0 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L:3145] Re: Nigeria > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.08 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN >> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: [PEN-L:3145] Re: Nigeria > Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 23:26:28 -0600 > From: Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You don't believe that capitalism has progressive aspects? I thought you were > a > Marxist? > How can you hold both that capitalism has no progressive aspects and that you > are a Marxist at one and the same time? THere are numerous passages in Marx > filled with praises of capitalism's progressive features, of the manner in > which > it releases the productive forces of nature and frees people from feudal > bonds. > . > > CHeers , Ken Hanly > > Louis Proyect wrote: > > > Doug: > > >Seeing the world in black and white makes writing polemic a lot easier, but > > >it's not very helpful. I was reacting to your preposterous claim that > > >Nigeria has seen "plenty of investment," which is why the phrase was in > > >quotes. Nigeria has not had "plenty of investment," it's had too little and > > >of a very distorted sort. Here's the full exchange. I especially like the > > >way you forgot to quote the "It's been plundered" part. > > > > Doug, we have political differences that no amount of quoting in context or > > out of context will change. You believe that capitalism has some > > progressive aspects, while I believe that it has none. That is what the > > debate is about. > > > > Louis Proyect > > > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
