At 09:04 AM 9/10/98 -0700, Tom wrote: >Given the inevitability of capitalist crises (emphasis on the plural) and >the non-inevitablity of socialism, would it be possible to clearly outline >the conditions of under which stabilization and resumption of dynamic >capitalist development become untenable? > >... The expression "socialism or barbarism" implies just such a permanent >crisis, otherwise it would have been "socialism, barbarism or a new regime >of accumulation". Right -- the barbarism of the 1930s and 1940s helped produce a new regime of accumulation for the advanced capitalist countries in the 1950s; the crisis eventually led to a non-crisis. But of course that "new regime of accumulation" involved a lot of barbarism against people in places such as Viet Nam and the barbarism of the Cold War. And the non-crisis eventually created the seeds of its own destruction. The formula "socialism or barbarism" should be treated as only that -- a formula. BTW, we should be fairer to the "barbarians," who in traditional European usage included American Indians and most other non-European peoples. In many if not most cases, the Europeans ended up being much more barbarian to the "barbarians" (and to each other) than the "barbarians" were. A better word than "barbarism" is needed. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html
