Waistline's running the 7-minute mile through the M-L classics and delivering some real gems, like this one:
"Imperialism as a curve of history is not simply Empire but generally the export of a more advance productive and social relations to less developed areas." Oh, really?!?!?!?!?!? I am confident the peoples of the Indian subcontinent would have some points of disagreement with you about the "more advance [sic] productive and social relations" that the British Raj exported among them, like shopping off the right thumb of the muslin weavers of Bengal at different times during the 18th and 19th century so the Lancashire textile factory owners wouldn't have to worry about competition from higher quality product. Oh and then there's that little matter of the entirely British-arranged famine throughout Bengal in the midst of WW2, which killed off more people than the Nazi judeocide in Europe but hey! they were brown and spoke funny so who cares.... Or there's that wonderful innovation that the FDR New Deal's "Good Neighbour" policy in the Americas exported to Nicaragua in the 1930s with the ascent of Gen Somoza to power over the slaughters bodies of more than 10,000 campesinos of Sandino's movement. This was the governmental wrinkle whereby Gen. Somoza's Cabinet always kept an empty chair warm, at al, times for any dignitary or emissary from the United States to intervene directly in the internal affairs of that country. That is all that was really "novel" about that particular junta, and it really describes the actual content of FDR's description of Gen. Somoza as "may be a sonofabitch, but he is our sonofabitch". It should have remained utterly unremarkable except for one thing: this is EXACTLY 100% IDENTICAL to the method by which the Truman and subsequent administrations were enabled to intervene readily at the level of the internal operations of the executive branch of the Zionist state after its establishment in May 1948. it was identical because it was the same method reapplied. The disguise was: reserved position in the Israei Cabinet for "representatives of the World Zionist Movement". By an amazing coincidence, after six years of the Nazi rape of Europe, the only remaining organised base of this so-called "World Zionist Movement" just happened to be... the United States of Amerikkka! The other examples anyone here could add to the catalogue are endless. The conclusion is always the same: what was exported by the imperial power to the colonial areas was, always and everywhere, darkest reaction and thinly-disguised utterly fascist forms of rule. Waistline the 7-minute mark many indeed represent a milestone on the quantitative aspect. But the qualitative aspect .... uh, "needs work", shall we say? Regards >In a message dated 7/3/2008 5:52:04 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >I took a quick look at this post and noted Waistline's totally non-Leninist >(and thus non-scientific) statement about imperialism. What does it mean to >say: "Imperialism existed long before Lenin was born, or Marx for that >matter." This only makes sense if one speaks about imperialism in >the general sense >of "empire", in which case one can speak of the "imperialism" of the Roman >Empire, for example. But if we are speaking of present-day imperialism, which >Lenin correctly described as "monopoly capitalism" it did not yet exist at >Marx's time (although there were aspects of it that were developing >in the later >part of Marx's life). It had a beginning around the turn of the last century >(the Spanish-American War and the Boer War are usually considered the first >wars of the imperialist epoch), and it will come to an end with the defeat of >imperialism, particularly U.S. imperialism, if not in our lifetimes >hopefully in our children's lifetimes. > >If we are to use an "an accurate description of the world" then we have to >be concrete. > >Fraternally, >George > >Reply > >The reason I continually write of Lenin's Hobson analysis of imperialism >(and Hobson was a liberal) is the characterization of imperialism as the >domination of the financial oligarchy and why communists of the >entire era of the >Third International called imperialism financial-industrial capital. >To define >imperialism, as Lenin described it, as monopoly capital, and then insists >that those who define Lenin's imperialism as financial -industrial capital - >because of the export of capital as distinct from the export of >commodities Marx >spoke of, is non-Leninists is . . . well . . . .different. > >Imperialism as a curve of history is not simply Empire but generally the >export of a more advance productive and social relations to less developed >areas. That is why it is imperialism. Empire conquers because it has >weapons and >superior organization. These superior weapons are the result of advanced >production technique and its corresponding organization. > >But . . . we are to test content with Lenin's imperialism being monopoly >capitalism and not financial-industrial capital. > >Pardon if I insist on basing American imperialism on its own history and >rise as financial-industrial oligarchy on the basis of our Civil War. > >Seven minutes > >W. > > > > > >**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for >fuel-efficient used cars. >(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) > >_______________________________________________ >Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list >Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
