DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
is this the expected capital strike then
Marx has given me the tools with which to become immune to the toxic propaganda of neoliberalism. For example, the idea that wealth is privately produced and then appropriated by a quasi-illegitimate state, through taxation, is easy to succumb to if one has not been exposed first to Marx’s poignant argument that precisely the opposite applies: wealth is collectively produced and then privately appropriated through social relations of production and property rights that rely, for their reproduction, almost exclusively on false consciousness.
so JP Morgan are saying that greek banks will run out of useable cash collateral in 3 months, given current drawdown/ fleeing euro levels
It's starting to enter endgame territory here.
JP Morgan, the bankers who helped to fund the Iraq invasion/war.
The Guardian has re-hashed a speech Yanis gave in 2013 explaining his 'erratic Marxism'...
Makes for quite an interesting read.
It's starting to enter endgame territory here.
Either the Greeks submit to the terms or else they default on their debts, redenominate their currency from Euros into a new Drachma (Grexit) and presumably put in place severe currency controls to stop the current bank run becoming a catastrophe.
Cue massive recession and emigration from Greece.
It will also put extreme pressure on the EU principle of freedom of movement and the fundamental idea that the EU is permanent - i.e. no one can ever leave.
The Guardian has re-hashed a speech Yanis gave in 2013 explaining his 'erratic Marxism'...
Makes for quite an interesting read.
Yeah, I'd go with a great deal of that; I found the parts on freedom and the limits of political democracy quite refreshing. That said, the central premise that "European capitalism" (whateverthefuckthatis) has to be saved for fear of what might replace is surely the crux of the issue. Seen in a sort of 'world-system' scale, an anti-systemic party working to preserve the system, does not suggest a great confidence in his professed Marxism.The conservative left will hate it because of his central argument - that Marxists should be working to save the European capitalist model rather than 'organise' for its replacement. His reasoning - which I share - is that the collapse of European capitalism would not automatically mean its replacement with a more progressive alternative. In fact, given the impotence of the left it is likely that what would replace neo-liberalism would be far more reactionary in formation and outlook.
Also very impressed with his analysis on how the left abandoned the playing field on the concept of 'freedom' allowing capital a free hand to define the entire concept of freedom as indivisible from their economic model (and therefore equating left ideas as the opposite of freedom and statist).
His demonstration of the severe and probably fatal seperation of poltics and economy, and how professed socialists have sometimes captured the former and not the latter and the consequences, is spot on and a ironically has lesson for those currently hyperventilating about the election of Syriza.
Also like - and strongly agree - with the section arguing that for any progressive force wanting to properly win the argument and gain real agency their arguments need to be located within the mainstream's axiom's rather than attempting (and always failing) to promote theories that are outside of this.
Finally, the analysis of Thatcher and the impact on the left and the working class is also well thought out and argued.
Required reading.
Fits with his first criticism of Marx though.Yeah, I'd go with a great deal of that; I found the parts on freedom and the limits of political democracy quite refreshing. That said, the central premise that "European capitalism" (whateverthefuckthatis) has to be saved for fear of what might replace is surely the crux of the issue. Seen in a sort of 'world-system' scale, an anti-systemic party working to preserve the system, does not suggest a great confidence in his professed Marxism.
Well, it would, wouldn't it?Fits with his first criticism of Marx though.
I confess I would much rather be promoting a radical agenda, the raison d’être of which is to replace European capitalism with a different system.
Yet my aim here is to offer a window into my view of a repugnant European capitalism whose implosion, despite its many ills, should be avoided at all costs.
So what are we to make of this...
"...at all costs."
War is hell and I understand his call for pragmatism."Not out of love for European capitalism, for the eurozone, for Brussels, or for the European Central Bank, but just because we want to minimise the unnecessary human toll from this crisis."
It's almost like he predicts Syriza's coalition with the Independent Greeks."Forging alliances with reactionary forces, as I think we should do to stabilise Europe today, brings us up against the risk of becoming co-opted, of shedding our radicalism through the warm glow of having “arrived” in the corridors of power."
War is hell and I understand his call for pragmatism.
He reminds me of that quote from Walter Benjamin, "Behind every Fascism there is a failed revolution."
Isis is the failure of the secular left in the Arab Spring.
The liberal bourgeoise state will side with the fascists rather than lose their titles and privileges as they did in Spain, Italy and Germany.
It's almost like he predicts Syriza's coalition with the Independent Greeks.
"A spectre is haunting Europe" and it doesn't look or feel like Communism.
Isis is the failure of the secular left in the Arab Spring.
But, faced with systemic collapse, is pragmatism born of fear the best we can hope for from an anti-systemic party? The system cannot work...so...we must preserve the system at all costs?
I think he's making an argument for reformism in the article.“Things have to get worse before they get better.”
. His reasoning - which I share - is that the collapse of European capitalism would not automatically mean its replacement with a more progressive alternative.
So what are we to make of this...
"...at all costs."
Well...maybe, but it's certainly odd to see someone speaking like this in 2013, entering into a position of power within representative democracy, dedicated to preserving capitalism at all costs.Smells like a sell- out to me...
...if capitalism appears unjust this is because it enslaves everyone; it wastes human and natural resources; the same production line that pumps out remarkable gizmos and untold wealth, also produces deep unhappiness and crises.
Marx would have laughed long and hard at those who seem surprised, or upset, by the “democratic deficit”. What was the great objective behind 19th-century liberalism? It was, as Marx never tired of pointing out, to separate the economic sphere from the political sphere and to confine politics to the latter while leaving the economic sphere to capital. It is liberalism’s splendid success in achieving this long-held goal that we are now observing.
The world-system is self-destructing. The world-system is in what the scientists of complexity call a bifurcation. This means that the present system cannot survive, and that the real question is what will replace it. While we cannot predict what kind of new system will emerge, we can affect the choice between the substantive alternatives available. But we can only hope to do this by a realistic analysis of existing chaotic swings and not hide our political efforts behind delusions about reforming the existing system or by deliberate attempts to obfuscate our understanding.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Smash capitalism first.
Thank you for proving my point
His reasoning - which I share - is that the collapse of European capitalism would not automatically mean its replacement with a more progressive alternative.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. Smash capitalism first.
Thank you for proving my point
Good article that. Does Immanuel Wallerstein say how he'd like to replace the current broken system?I think Yanis needs to spend some quality time with Immanuel...
I have heard Wallerstein speak at the LSE, but I've not read enough of his academic output to say for sure how normative his work has been. Though it is true to say that the question of what might replace capitalism is one of the research areas that world-system theorists have concerned themselves with.Broken links
Good article that. Does Immanuel Wallerstein say how he'd like to replace the current broken system?
Did I say that?
Tomorrow will therefore show if the Eurogroup has any meaning beyond Merk's will.Wow. Am genuinely surprised this morning's 6 month loan extension request has been rejected. V.v. high stakes stuff now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31532755