capitalism?

There seems to be some confusion about "capitalism." If this seems to be a presumptuous statement by me, then let me revise it to say that I HAVE SOME CONFUSION ABOUT HOW THIS DISCUSSION ON WSN IS GOING....  No attack meant....I'll admit that the confusion is mine.

 

I believe that Marx had many important insights into the "scientific method as applied to social institutions, social processes, and social change"  (dialectical materialism applied to the social world). His analysis of the problems of capitalism, crisis of overproduction, tendency for systems to choke on their own (twisted, perverted, polluted, distorted) "prosperity", how processes reach limits and become opposite, how productive systems become ANTI-productive and destructive, suppression of science & technology, rise of war, dictatorship, killing of "excess populations", need for revolution to eliminate the state as tool of the exploiters, etc. etc. etc. as well as understanding alienation as the root of human oppression coming out of class society, and the role of consciousness, etc.  There is a lot there that I think is useful, much more than many of the "neo-Marxists" who like aspects of the dialectical method (sort of) but who reject those core concepts that separate Marx's views from Hegel's.

 

However, Marx was not a god--he was doubtless wrong on many things. At the risk of committing heresey in front of some of my Marxist friends, I would not insist that Marx fully understood the political-economy of China of the 14th century, etc., and the sometimes oversimplified explanation of Asiatic Mode and slavery leading to feudalism then capitalism (which I believe does have some useful explanatory power) certainly is oversimplified and, as expressed by some contemporary Marxists does not take into account unevenness and contingencies, which can be HUGE factors upsetting a neat theory. I don't think that the core of Marx's overall perspective is saved or destroyed by whether or not China had a more powerful economic system than Europe in the 11th century.

 

So, like most others who find much useful in Marx, I accept some things, don't necessarily accept others, and believe that those who accept what I reject are being dogmatic and those who reject what I accept are revising Marx too much.

 

Having expressed that self-reflective mode of thinking, and trying to be open about the possibilities, I nevertheless DO believe that there are certain aspects of the way that economic processes function that are different now from 800 years ago.

 

Problems of oppression, which virtually all members of the WSN list are very sensitive to, (including agfrank--why do you think he and others put so much effort into exposing how devastating economic inequality is to to many millions?)---this oppression is not simply the result of instrumentalist, corrupt oligarchies -- nasty rich people who just like to take from the laboring classes.  There are patterns within the capitalist system that spin out of the control of capitalists themselves. It is true that without a revolutionary vision and a revolutionary movement, the various wars and economic collapse will result in other "capitalists" taking advantage of the situation and consolidating power. So in that sense, it is not completely out of the control of all the capitalists. But there are processes distinctive to the situation in the world today, as opposed to 800 years ago, aren't there?

 

Maybe these comments are missing the point. I'm simply trying to "boil the discussion down" so that I can understand if there are core disagreements on these questions, and if so, what those core (no pun intended), what those fundamental differences are.

 

Alan Spector

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------