96 Tears, Part 2

1. The events of September 11, 2001 cleared the air, literally, and settled, figuratively, the immediate, and always present issue confronting political economy and political economists: “Is the economy head for a hard landing or a soft landing?”

A day of infamy… of rejoicing…of atonement…of better being lucky than being better… a day of consequence and convergence… Santiago, Chile 1973, New York, New York 2001.. a day more and less like any other day where and when the truth of free markets, of the “new” “global” “information” economy is made manifest, is uncovered, not in and not by, but made manifest as the rubble around, within, and of private property. A day like all others, a day made of all other days…

(Dinah Washington in the background singing “What A Diff’rence A Day Makes”)

The bourgeoisie meet to commemorate their air express guaranteed on time delivery door to door arson, their global insurance fire : “Why was this day different than all others?”

And from a seat unoccupied, the place left open for the expected/unexpected arrival of a prophet, a Messiah, a drunken frat boy, rich drunken frat boy, an answer “Not one bit different. Samey-same. Just like all the others. Just closer to home.” Moron/messiah, prophet/frat boy, samey-same indeed.

2. Destruction of assets, immiseration of accumulated and immediate social labor; reproduction of the elements of destruction and immiseration has always part and whole of capital expanding, capital contracting, capital flowering, capital withering, capital advanced and capital recalled.. and of capital overthrown and capital restored.

…So that the growth of the 1990s does not occur without the destruction of assets in the former Soviet Union; does not occur absent the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and and the demolition of Serbia.

…So that the capital expanded after 1992 could not occur without the previous contraction, the previous destruction of assets of the “lost decade,” the globally lost decade of the 1980s, that monument to the venality, viciousness of Reagan and Thatcher.

…So that the restoration of profit after 2001, and only the restoration of profit explains the “recovery,” the persistence of capitalism in general, and of of US capitalism in particular.

…So that the restoration of profit required destruction of assets in part, reducing the rate of accumulation in whole.

…So that expansion and contraction, recovery and decline lose their meanings in and of themselves and only have meaning in their organization in each other, in a composed identity.

…So that cash is trash becomes, determines cash is king.


S. Artesian August 27, 2006
address all comments to: sartesian@earthlink.net

Advertisements

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: