Re: Tautology: To Doug

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx 06/30/00 05:51PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:

>Doug, by now, I have heard you say the equivalent of "Communists
>endlessly repeat slogans" or "Communists endlessly repeat that
>capitalism is doomed" , as Carrol phrases it,  quite often.  What I
>wonder is do you  think that capitalism will collapse or not ? or
>are you  uncertain ?

I don't think capitalism will collapse, though anything is possible.
The more likely end to capitalism, if there ever is one, is through
political organization and expropriation of the expropriators.

________

CB: Yes. Communists ( or as I understand Marx)  agree with that a capitalism  is not a mechanical system, will take conscious, organized human action to change.

When you say if there ever is an end, you mean within a period of time that is short of a thousand years or some really long time such that we wouldn't care , I take it ?
______



I
think there are a lot of people who are now using ecological crisis
as a substitute for underconsumption/overinvestment/realization
crisis theories of collapse.

________

CB: Do you mean here that underconsumption, etc crisis theories of collapse are flawed because they leave out the agency of political organization and expropriation of the expropriators ? And that ecological crisis theory of collapse is similarly flawed as positing only, what I call, objective factors as a cause ?  Or do you mean that underconsumption , etc. crisis theory is a better theory than ecological crisis theory of collapse ?

____


It's not only communists who theorize collapse or something like it -
so did/do some classical economists, goldbugs, survivalists, and
evangelical Christians.

_______

CB: Are really saying, as you suggest , that the communist theories or all communist theories ( or the communist theories on these lists)  of the end of capitalism are flawed in the same way and for the same reason that all the others are ?  That all communist theories on this are not based on inference from material evidence, facts, historical  evidence ?