| This question <57|133> overall <76|78> Peace: <429|80>. |
| Question 301: Thread 301 |
| [77] Peace: How to beat capitalism in less than 50 years? i am picking up on Kalispel's discussion thread. |
| First, i am unable to locate where in the introduction that it says it is unlikely that capitalism will last another 50 years[?]. |
| In fact Mandel's introduction in section 11 seems to attempt to defend against these types of “inevitable collapse of capitalism” interpretations of Marx. |
| Secondly, i am a bit troubled by Kalispel's idea that capitalism can be transcended by the individual. Moreover, that the way the individual transcends capitalism is, in Kalispel's words, by “[t]he goal, of course, is to be rich”. |
| Next, Kalispel introduces philosophical terms such as happiness and freedom ... wants and desires. Stating that the “first law of any type of happiness [...] is freedom”. i especially dislike and disagree with this formulation. However, Kalispel seems (quite unsuccessfully) to be trying to develop some sort of notion of self- determination; or in some sense of minimizing the coercive (social) forces that confront each individual. |
| Kalispel states: “I am not a commodity.” This i like very much. This idea is important to Marx, and seems very related to his notions of commodity fetishism and alienation. However, this is not the line that Kalispel decides to pursue or develop. |
| Kalispel's question is not ‘how to overcome alienation’, but rather “[h]ow to be rich”. Noting that most people in a capitalist society are and cannot be rich. But that “old” people can achieve “cash” and consequently “freedom.” |
| Kalispel ends with the question “how” to “break out of capitalism on a personal level, not as a society. Please leave out moral implications.” |
| This entire analysis is full of moral implications, so i am unsure what is meant by leaving them out. But more importantly it seems that Kalispel has made a mistake to believe that an individual by hirself can transcend the coercive (social) forces of capitalism by becoming “rich.” i would argue that a rich person confronts the coercive (social) forces on a different level. |
| The mistake seems to be in equating “cash” with “freedom”; this is especially to remain in a capitalist consciousness (however, i would agree that a “rich” individual has more choices than the poor individual; but i do not want to equate this with a notion of “freedom” or “self-determination”). |
| i would further add that an individual can change class status in capitalism, but that no individual by hirself can “break” out of capitalist social relations. This requires a social transformation. There are certain boundary conditions (of freedom) in a capitalist society; a philosophical notion freedom cannot be achieved within the boundary conditions of capitalism. Likewise, “freedom” by definition could not have been achieved in a (Greek) Slave economy or in a Feudal economy. |
| The individual can achieve emancipation from the tyranny of being a member of the welfare class or the working class; but the individual cannot achieve freedom from capitalism within capitalist relations. |
|
|
|||||