----------
> From: Bill Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Capitalism in the Electronic Age
> Date: Sunday, June 15, 1997 4:08 AM
>
> Graeme Imray wrote:
>
> >Dear All
> >
> >I have read so many analyses just like the one on this list under this
> >heading  which treat capitalism as an 'objective' system 'out there'
doing
> >all these terrible things to us. Indeed for a long period in the 70s
that
> >is just how I conceived it. Workers, it seemed, were simply the 'blind
> >beasts of revolt', forced into a reaction by the terrible effects of the
> >system.
>
> Although "blind beasts" etc. is a gross caricature, I think there is some
> truth in the reactionary accusation. For many workers, content with their
> lot - or at least TOLERANT of it, it can be a rude shock to find that
their
> place in the scheme of things, their way of life, SECURITY, is suddenly
> snuffed out. This has been the fate of very many in recent years and for
> those who have not been involved in struggle and have not therefor had
the
> opportunity to gain an understanding of how the system works, it is
common
> to react wildly. This takes many forms - religion, extreme politics
> (fascist, leftist or sometimes just loopy), the only defence and the only
> cure is to gain an understanding of what is going on and what can be
done.

Exactly. You must consider that, in the absence of an objective
understanding of one's place at the moment in the larger scheme of things,
workers, like everyone else, will opt for the short term economic advantage
every time. It appears, from the subjective vantage point, to be the sane
thing to do. Unfortunately, since the average worker does not have a team
of economists, accountants, historians and Craig Supercomputers to do
her/his forecasting, the worker is at a disadvantage. These aids to the
capitalist, along with the superior education, teams of lawyers, prepaid
political, police and military assistance as well as the power of the media
are the the contemporary manifestation (of  sum of 100 more years) of
alienated labor confronting the worker which Marx described in Capital.

> Here in Australia at the moment we are going through what is known as the
> "Pauline Hanson phenomenon", an upsurge in reactionary xenophobia
focussed
> on a new independant member of parliament who blames everything on
> Aborigines, migrants, multiculturalism, blah, blah. Basicly many people,
> especially in rural and regional areas are getting pretty unsettled about
> continuing change and constant erosion of their security and standard of
> living and as soon as a politician came onto the stage who was obviously
> not part of the 'system'. ** PS: We knew that because she was
dis-endorsed
> as a Liberal party candidate for speaking out against the "privilege"
> enjoyed by aborigines in this country.** She promptly won election to a
> safe-as-houses Labour federal seat and, reminiscent of Chance the
Gardener,
> has taken the country by storm. It seems clear that, although even her
most
> loyal supporters acknowledge her complete lack of any idea as to what to
do
> about the country's problems, that is EXACTLY what they like about her.

Can you enlighten us more about this Hanson? Is she the Australian
Gingrich, or Clinton, or something else?

> Maybe there's a lesson for us all there - in fact I'm sure there is - I
> just wish I knew what it was.

As you look for this lesson, I recommend (re-?)examining 1.) the phenomena
that Lenin described in "Imperialism - the Highest Stage of Capitalism" and
2.) the history of the German experience with Fascism.

> Anyhow, I might respond to Brian Ashton's article later,

Me, too. It warrants a very thoughtful, and studied, response.

> but first I have to try to get my head around this "objectivist" thing.
Frankly its new to
> me, although I remember that leninists did used to go on about the
> "inevitability" of something or other, I think I must have gotten hold of
> the wrong end of the stick. I always conceived of the overproduction
thing
> being a REASON to get rid of capitalism, not something that would
> AUTOMATICALLY do it for us.

I think you need to (again, re-?)read Lenin about this "inevitability"
thing. A thorough reading of Lenin's extensive writings nowhere give rise
to the suspicion that he harbored any magical thinking whatsoever. As far
as the "overproduction thing" goes, Marx, Engels and others have pointed
out that it is an internal contradiction of Capitalism. Neither Marx, nor
Engels nor Lenin said anything about it providing a substitute for
revolutionary action. Rather, it merely is one of several phenomena that
show the weakness of the system and it's unsuitability as a solution to the
problems facing most of mankind. It points out a major point of divergence
between the needs of the capitalists and the needs of  workers, and, as it
is "solved" from time to time, illustrates the real power relations in a
given society at a given moment. More later, when I have some time.

- DDeBar

> Now you've dashed that optimistic thought before I even got to understand
it!
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tasmania