[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives: Debate, pt.1
Victor O. Story wrote:
>I agree. If we want to talk about development in realistic terms we are
>talking capitalism. That is why in practical terms, all the weeping and
>teeth grinding over the concept of capitalism is a waste of time. We
>should be discussing development, not fixating on how sentimental we feel
>about anti-capitalist rhetoric. Our adolescent memories of righteous
>indignation with the injustices of the world and the attachment of our
>egos to symbols of bygone Marxist heroes and May Day rallies are pathetic
>excuses for serious analysis of problems of ordinary people who live and
>breathe.
>
>Victor
The problem is with the word "development". This term assumes that
there is some natural "progressive" form of social change ("development"
implies a perfect "natural" state that beings are attaining--such as a
human child "developing" into an adult), and the "model" always seems to
be whatever happens to be the most "advanced" society at the time--ignoring
all moral and practical questions about what we mean by "advancement". So,
several years ago, when socialism still seemed to be "advanced", people
thought there were "two models of development". Now, by the same twisted
logic there is only one. But this presumes that "capitalism" IS "development"
and thus _a priori_ "good". Can we escape from this logic? I don't know.
Follow-Ups: