Political Economy
Posted: 17 Nov 2017, 2:42pm
Recently been reading Minqi Li and his analysis is persuasive. I recommend checking out his lectures:
The first one has the bulk of his argument, and is the essential viewing. I add the others in because he explains things a bit differently here and there, which helps if the first is unclear.
As a Marxist, Li is a bit too optimistic about future developments (kind of funny to say given his emphasis on impending doom). For one thing he neglects the rise of neo-fascism as a factor. Crisis conditions seem to precipitate fascism as much as they do socialism. The balance of forces on the eve of crisis may determine the direction of various nations. I could easily see a resource squeeze under fascism leading to a horrifying drive to reduce "surplus" population. He also makes the case that the social-democratic Keynesianism advocated by Sanders etc as a solution to crisis doesn't have enough economic basis to succeed, nor ultimately to forestall the fundamental crisis of the system. That leaves us back at the old question of socialism or barbarism. I am not convinced that socialism would inevitably win out given the extreme ecological pressures at work and the comparatively more favorable institutional conditions for reaction instead of revolution.
I also think the change may be slightly less rapid than he projects, but not for any specific reason, just being cautious about giving a date for crisis. But I do think that the crisis is inevitable.
The first one has the bulk of his argument, and is the essential viewing. I add the others in because he explains things a bit differently here and there, which helps if the first is unclear.
As a Marxist, Li is a bit too optimistic about future developments (kind of funny to say given his emphasis on impending doom). For one thing he neglects the rise of neo-fascism as a factor. Crisis conditions seem to precipitate fascism as much as they do socialism. The balance of forces on the eve of crisis may determine the direction of various nations. I could easily see a resource squeeze under fascism leading to a horrifying drive to reduce "surplus" population. He also makes the case that the social-democratic Keynesianism advocated by Sanders etc as a solution to crisis doesn't have enough economic basis to succeed, nor ultimately to forestall the fundamental crisis of the system. That leaves us back at the old question of socialism or barbarism. I am not convinced that socialism would inevitably win out given the extreme ecological pressures at work and the comparatively more favorable institutional conditions for reaction instead of revolution.
I also think the change may be slightly less rapid than he projects, but not for any specific reason, just being cautious about giving a date for crisis. But I do think that the crisis is inevitable.