Re: [Pen-l] comment at conference

[Patrick Bond <pbond@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

michael a. lebowitz wrote:
> ...
> I think the distinction that we have to make is to recognize that 
> there are two paths.
> The first is a capitalist path, the restructuring of capitalism. The 
> second is a socialist path, one which creates conditions for building 
> socialism; and one of the most significant of those conditions is 
> creating conditions in which there is mobilization of subjective 
> forces, masses, the accumulation of popular forces.
> The first path relies upon the capitalist state and reproduces 
> illusions in capitalism; it reinforces the idea of capitalism as 
> practical. The second path creates consciousness of the nature of 
> capitalism; it recognizes that crisis is an opportunity, an 
> opportunity to intensify the battle of ideas.
> The first path, the capitalist path, is the path of Mercosur and a 
> Bank of the South that reproduces the character of  existing 
> international agencies. The second path is the path of Alba and of a 
> Bank of the South based on new relations building upon solidarity.
> The question we have before us is what path will be taken?

Absolutely right line of questioning, it seems to me. I've also just 
come out of a couple of Kism-in-crisis sessions - one with www.ifg.org 
in SF and the other tonight with Institute for Policy Studies comrades 
in Washington.

But while we are all rather triumphalist about 'neoliberalism is dead' 
(as nearly everyone seems to be), two other processes look likely to now 
play out: a) new waves of austerity visiting on working peoples plus 
eco-destruction in a frantic search for profit under conditions of 
fiscal discipline; and b) resurgent neoliberal micro-processes but 
revitalised within new regionalist institutions or even new state 
agencies, e.g. if the Bank of the South follows the Brazilian 
Development Bank model (as some here in Washington with good insider 
connections and left instincts were fearing).

The other thing that worries me more and more is that some version of 
Keynesianism and import substitution industrialisation is thought to be 
the antidote, whereas one could just as easily argue that the origins of 
the crisis came from Keynesianism's limitations and overaccumulation 
within the ISI (luxury-oriented) model itself. So by placing blame on 
"neoliberalism" or deregulation or greed/corruption/fraud, the critique 
that is most easy/common on the liberal left begs the question of deeper 
problems in accumulation dating back to the 1970s. Is that a reasonable 
worry?

See you Monday in Caracas, Michael.

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l