Perhaps, unwittingly, but nevertheless, Robert Redmond puts a very serious
question -- can the socially- and ecologically-amenable innovations replace
the present orientation of capitalist production towards mass consumer
goods and armaments? I believe this is really the core of the debate on the
future of the system.
I would sharpen it further -- what can prevent capitalism from a
transition towards ecological Keynesianism? If we assume that the military
Keynesianism did really exist and played the key stabilizing role in the
last hundred years or so (which needs to be proven, but in the WSN we might
agree it was indeed the case), then why couldn't the global environmental
clean up provide the huge market of tax-payer eagerly supported
expenditure, with an attractive ideology, very liberal goals, and the place
for a sprawling international bureaucracy of managers and experts?
What is the limit to the adaptability of this system?
Georgi
Georgiļ M. Derluguian
Department of Sociology
Northwestern University
1812 Chicago Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60208-1330
USA
FAX (1-847) 491-9907
tel. (1-847) 491-2741 (rabota)