We have gone far away from criticism of WS fathers. While
reflecting on Richard Moore's arguments I decided to suggest a new subject
concerning objective long-term trends of World Capitalism and
possible alternative evaluations of them.
Three main views on this point can be seen:
a) the liberal 'mainstream' position: "free market economy and democracy
are winning, they are becoming stronger and stronger and they are really
worthy this victory" (Fukuyama, etc)
I think nobody in wsn needs arguments against this position.
b) the left expectations of world capitalism's decline: it's a world
desease ("virus") and it is worthy its forthcoming failure (Wallerstein,
Chase-Dann)
My question: What are real visible signs of decline or crisis, which
should be stronger than all those problems and crises that world capitalism
successfully prevailed in the past (f.e. in 1810-15, 1848-9, 1914-18, 1930-32,
1939-45, 1968-69)?
c) the left appeals for struggle against strong and threatening world
capitalism (appeals by Maoism, Trotskism in Latin America, etc, Russian
Communism, maybe in wsn by R.Moore in his struggle against 'imperialism' and
TNC)
My doubts and questions:
Historical facts tell us that in most cases of open 'hot'
struggle against world capitalism did not succeed, but ALL the local national
'successes' (f.e. in Russia since 1917, China, Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, Albania)
led inevitably to mass social disasters, poverty, frequently - mass terror.
On the contrary most "soft" and interior attemps to ameliorate
capitalism were successful, or at least, harmless (Second International and
Social-Democratic reforms in Europe in the beginning of XX, laborists in
Great Britain, socialists in Sweden, promotion of social programs in US,
France, Germany, etc).
Well, WS-theory can tell that it was possible only for core or
semipripheral countries, not for periphery. Great, but in this case the
imperative should be not a struggle against 'imperialism' (ie core countries)
transforming them to less democratric and tolerant regimes, but vice versa -
the imperative should be to try to rise the status (from periphery to
semipheriphery) of most exploited countries and peoples.
Is the last task possible without support of world capital, without
IMF, TNC, Big- 7 and all other 'devils', without appeal to moral norms of
humanism, justice,etc, even if we see so much hypocrisy in proclaiming these
values by mainstream leaders?
My position in brief on the question posed in the subject above:
- World Capitalism seems to strengthen (not decline),
- it is not a monolite, it is rather open for reforms (much more than all
non-capitalist social regimes!),
- many long-term trends of its transformation during last 500
years should be morally appreciated,
use this ideology as a support for 'soft' promotion of reforms for humanizing
Capitalism (first of all to work out the correspondent norms of world legal
system in international trade, debts, raw resources, etc)
now some comments to Richard Moore's msg:
> From: rkmoore@iol.ie (Richard K. Moore)
> Another answer is the changing nature of imperialism. From such a
> perspective one can see that the oil countries are quite nicely under
> control already. Israel provides a tension/threat situation, maintaining
> an excuse for continual U.S. diplomatic and military involvement.
> Fundamentalists and counter-factions -- all encouraged and assisted
> (overtly or covertly, directly or indirectly) by the U.S. -- maintain
> further tension, disunity, and lack of progress toward democractic
> institutions.
Dear Richard, I agree, but would you prefer US military invasion with mass
eliminating of native peoples, like Hitler would do? If not - the changed
nature of imperialism must be morally appreciated.
> When oil supplies are in excess, wars can be stirred up
it is a serious blame which needs arguments
> or excuses
> found to boycott one or another nation. If anyone tries to "go
> independent" (like Iraq
well, I regret nobody from Kuweit is here in wsn. I was out of CNN,
according to information of our correspondents just in the first days of
August 1993 invasion... no need to demonize it specially
The European equivalent of this Iraque's "independance" would be f.e.
invasion of London by Irish tank divisions, mass robbing of all Londoners,
crushing of all infra-structure, etc, etc
> or Libya), they can be media-demonized and
> militarily threatened by stealth-blitzkrieg or boycott-starvation.
>
> I ask Dr. Rozov -- Why would modern imperial managers want to
> revert to expensive 19th Century techniques?
I answer to Richard: bless God, they do not want: to be humanistic sometimes
occurs to be more profitable.
And I ask now everybody:
1) Where World Capitalism is going from your viewpoint?
2) Isn't it possible and reasonable to create options for further
prolongation of these humanistic-profitable trends of World
Capitalism instead of its demonizing?
Greetings from Siberia, Nikolai
Nikolai S. Rozov # Address:Dept. of Philosophy
Prof.of Philosophy # Novosibirsk State University
rozov@cnit.nsu.ru # 630090, Novosibirsk
Fax: (3832) 355237 # Pirogova 2, RUSSIA
Moderator of the mailing list PHILOFHI
(PHILosophy OF HIstory and theoretical history)
http://darwin.clas.virginia.edu/~dew7e/anthronet/subscribe
/philofhi.html