Re: Kism as progressive yet contradictory

[Sabri Oncu <soncu@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gil writes:

> I think there is a coherent progressive stance
> that would involve neither laissez-faire nor
> attempts to ban sweatshops outright.  But the
> point is that the contradictory nature of the
> system seems to dictate nuanced, "middle ground"
> responses to certain capitalist excesses, so long
> as the responses aren't calculated to overthrow the
> system itself.

Gil,

It is possible that I misunderstood what you meant. The language
you speak is beyond me, like this sentence for example:

"What if the traditional thesis is not true, and instead the
system's contradictions translate into a non-tendential series of
crises and at least temporarily adequate systemic adaptations to
same?"

But let me say that I have never thought that banning the
sweatshops outright is a solution of any kind.

Here is a question:

What is a "middle ground" response?

Also, why is it that the system seems to dictate nuanced
responses to certain capitalist excesses, so long as the
responses aren't calculated to overthrow the system itself?

Further, are you suggesting that the system dictates a uniform
response across the globe? To put it differently, should
Argentineans' or Koreans' response be identical to Americans'
response and why?

Not that I think there currently are forces in Argentina or Korea
who have the power to overthrow the system.

Sabri