Thanks to Paul for posting Alan Thornett's piece on the crisis. This
prompted two thoughts:
1) One thing Thornett might well have remarked on his what an
*old-fashioned* crisis this is; while 20th century (certainly post-WW2)
crises have arguably had their origin in the spheres of production and
circulation, the present outbreak is really a return to the 19th century
type of crisis with its origin solely in the financial sphere
("over-trading", i.e. speculation).
Given that "globalisation" has been fairly explicitly welcomed by capital's
apologists as a return to a 19th century-style system of open economies,
this is perhaps not very startling.
But if this characterisation of the crisis is correct, what implications
does this have for political practice?
What follows may not be true for those under, say, 30, but many current
activists' practical political skills stem from the traditions of
Hobsbawm's "short 20th century", while the skills forged in 19th century
are the province of academic specialists.
2) Thornett rightly attacks the notion that the answer to global capitalism
is national capitalism; but that doesn't of itself answer the question of
what demands should we put forward in relation to trade.
One of the reasons why (many years ago) I left the old International
Socialists was that organisation's inability to steer a course between
capitalist protectionism and free trade liberalism. I vividly remember a
comrade asserting that "of course" two socialist planned economies would
practice free trade (!) between each other.
Julian Wells
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|