Kism as progressive yet contradictory

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kism as progressive yet contradictory
by Gil Skillman
05 March 2002 23:22 UTC


[Was: : [PEN-L:23525] Re: Re: Re: Re: Wade vs Wolf


Another critical point touched on by Doug's comment concerns the connection
between contradiction and capitalist crisis (wow, what alliteration).  It
is traditional in Marxist analysis to read the system's contradictory
nature as translating into ever more destructive crises--the other half of
Marx's "scientific socialist" vision.  But, at least so far, the historical
record is far from decisive on this point. Is U.S capitalism weaker than it
was before 9/11?  Before 1980?  Before 1932?  Is global capitalism weaker
than it was in the early 20th century?  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?  Does this destroy the possibility that capitalist
laws of motion create a revolutionary class?

Gil

^^^^^^^

Charles: Generally, Marx's approach is not surprised when even a long term or epochal proceeds in a zig-zag or ebb-flow pattern. I would say that world capitalism is very , very clearly stronger in 2002 than before 1980. It is in a flow. Conversely, the working class or Marxist movement is in an ebb.  1917 was the opposite. Even 1959 was somewhat an opposite situation : flow for Marxism and world revolution. Marx's prediction was not that there would be necessarily a straight line of increasingly destructive crises for capitalism. It is more the shape of a stylized lightening bolt, with zigs forward and zags back, the sign of a  struggle.  Engels specifically said that the first socialist country might suffer complete setback.