Re: [Marxism] It's capitalism or a habitable planet - you can't have both

[Barry Brooks <durable@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>Capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature. It is predicated on 
>infinitely expanding markets, faster consumption and bigger production in a 
>finite planet.


How is capitalism defined? Definition by example is not
a good practice, so we can't let capitalism just be defined
by our particular experience with it.

The implementation of any plan or idea will vary, but the
principals may endure. Just as communism can't be properly
defined by the acts of Stalin, capitalism can not be defined
a particular set of actions.

Perhaps any advocate of Marx is a marxist, any follower of
XYZ is an xyzian. What other definition makes more sense and
generates less disagreement?

Perhaps the "nature" of capitalism is just private capital,
which does not need or imply expanding markets. The policy of
demand stimulation, or expansion,  was a scheme to allow a
continuation of wage dependence as machines replaced workers.

Monopoly capitalism is predicated on expansion, but without the
monopoly part wage-dependence/expansion would not be necessary.

I believe that wage dependence was a law in the U.S.S.R...
didn't their constitution have something about, 'he who doesn't
work doesn't eat?' Common wage dependence is a feature of
monopoly capitalism and of most expressions of socialism.

Hating monoploy gangster capitalism should not lead one to aspire
to wage dependence in an automated economy.

How radical must reform be before it stops being reform?

Barry
http://home.earthlink.net/~durable










________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism