Last exit fascism.

[Mark Wright AIA]

Howdy
--- Michel Ryckx <michel.ryckx at freebel.net> wrote:
> You're right.  But so is Otto. Dialectics!

Of course we're right! Far Right!    :)  (:

> 3. Lenin published a book on imperialism as 'the highest state of
> capitalism'  at the turn of the 20th century, thus describing a
> system of
> trade/exploitation of/with, what is now called under-developed
> countries.
> At the same time the Austro-Marxists were 'developing' a mathematical
> model
> of these contradictions.  It did not work.

So Otto isn't referring to Old Charlie Marx so directly as he might be
Lenin. It appears that L's definition of "imperialism" would not be
applicable to any empire prior to the British empire, if it is tied to
capitalism per se.  (Marx's reference would have been to Britain, a
capitalist monarchy and empire, as opposed to the Hapsburg or Tsarist
monarchys which remained more feudal in character...)  Or did he mean
that any advanced capitalist economy must somehow come to emulate the
behavior of Alexander the Great, Caesar, or Darius?  Do we capitalists
inevitably go marching off to invade and occupy and annex our
neighbors?  A case could be made that the Soviet and Maoist socialists
did at least as poorly by their neighbors as the US has... 


> 6. Otto is also right: bear in mind that wealth is to be seen,
> economically, as relative and not absolute.  And the differences
> between
> rich and poor are growing.  Perhaps in your country more clearly, but
> it
> happens in every capitalist country, though perhaps not that
> outspoken.

But Otto was referring to the middle class, which he characterized as
sinking into poverty.  You are referring to the great distance between
our entrenched all-too-wealthy "overclass" and *everybody* else.  The
nature of work in US and EU is shifting from physical labor and the
extraction of raw materials from nature to something else.  The
undereducated have much less to bring to the table than they once did. 
Though I'm no economist, I think of it this way--  The assets of the
rich are largely in forms of property from which income can be
extracted independently of direct personal labor.  The asset of a
"laborer" is time, and this asset can only be developed one day after
another with surpluses accumulated only slowly.  This is one reason why
"consumer credit" can be an evil; it converts a "laborer's" principal
asset (time) into a desperate liability in exchange for enabling an
unsupportable level of current consumption.  Perhaps a useful
definition of "middle class" be based on the balance achieved between a
capacity to accumulate a surplus based on time-bound labor (physical or
intellectual) and the mortgaging of future surplus for present
consumption.  Or something like that... (??) 


> The catastrophic inflation of Germany was over long before Hitler
> gained
> power.  But the poverty of labourers remained.  It is an illustration
> of
> the strength of Nazi propaganda that many people still think Hitler
> brought
> wealth.  The wages in 1939 were not yet on the 1929 level.

This isn't what I mean't.  The post-war collapse fertilized the
anti-semitism which had long been a feature of european politics. (And,
yes, US politics too... ) The Nazi's used anti-semitism as others had
before them.

> 7. The low price of energy in the USA is considered by some
> economists as
> the main weapon against poverty.  From the moment on America pays the
> real
> price for its energy, it will have serious problems.

You bet we will. And it won't be long now...  
But in the mean time, how 'bout those balloons? Anybody catch George W
on the tube last night?  Jim Lehrer says the 'Publicans do balloons
better than anybody...  Couldn't see Chris anywhere.

Mark

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/