Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
... As I've said before, the Internet provides opportunities to waste time in the most unproductive discussions. Charles F. Moreira LOL! I certainly take your point, Charles, but I'm in a state of enforced recovery and have precious little else to do for the next few weeks. True, Waistline is such easy pickings: his fantastic misreadings of Lenin's more-than-clear explanation of the bases/foundations of modern imperialism, etc. On a more serious note, meanwhile, there remains at this time, among political activists in many parts of North America although by no means confined to them, this great and as-yet-unresolved difficulty which confronts by all those who wage political struggle on the side of the working class: there is nothing anyone can point to as a leading trend from which to either take one's discipline or by which to orient one's work. The serious aim actually underlying my happy-warrior tiltings at Waistline's windmills in here [=the MLL] is that, as first principle, we have to take the M-L classics as the foundation and re-educate ourselves/begin-all-over-again by summing up the current conjuncture of developments on the world scale according to the DIRECTIONS which are clearly to be found in these classics. On that count, non-Marxist sources, regardless how well-informed on macro or micro-economic details of the current conjuncture, must be placed second in priority. The job of serious activists at this time is to sort out, in practical organising terms, the relationship between strengthening existing resistance struggles and preparing the ground for the revival of the flow of revolution. (If the fundamental M-L principles are not being reaffirmed in any of the contemporary contexts, we can forget about and write off any hopes for the latter prospect developing very far.) We pay attention to phenomena like the U.S. presidential elections and the anti-war movement etc because certain elements and movements within those contexts do indeed engage the bourgeois reactionary state at this time, compelling it to bare its fangs amidst the broad masses. Same goes for resisting aspects of the so-called 'war on terror', which is everywhere more and more nothing but state-terrorising of everyday civil life. Internationally it is remarkable and very important to grasp the significance of and utilise the fact that the vast majority of struggles are not only broadly anti-imperialist in character but quite specifically anti-U.S.-imperialist in their actual direction. Regards ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
In a message dated 7/4/2008 3:03:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: LOL! I certainly take your point, Charles, but I'm in a state of enforced recovery and have precious little else to do for the next few weeks. True, Waistline is such easy pickings: his fantastic misreadings of Lenin's more-than-clear explanation of the bases/foundations of modern imperialism, etc. Intangible Comment I have not misread Lenin's Hobson analysis of imperialism and him defining it as financial-industrial imperialism or the export of capital - in its money form, as distinct from the export of commodities. The bases/foundation merely defines the features upon which this export of capital arose top hegemony over the previously existing form of imperialism. George defining Lenin's Hobson analysis of imperialism as monopoly capitalism rather than the domination of the financial oligarchy was a surprising statement that you seem to support. Fine. There will always be differences of opinion. Pardon if I insists that the imperialism of which Lenin writes is characterized as financial-industrial capital. It is precisely this form of imperialism that would define the character of the Second Imperialist World War, when the Comintern defined German led European fascism as the striving of the most reaction, chauvinistic and imperialist elements of capital under the domination of the INDUSTRIAL sector. Hence the striving of Germany to recreate the direct colonial relationship American financial-industrial imperialism was through into conflict with German fascism seeking direct colonies. This is of course old hat. Today there is no industrial sector of capital as such. There is industry but no industrial sector of capital. WL. Intangible writes: The serious aim actually underlying my happy-warrior tiltings at Waistline's windmills in here [=the MLL] is that, as first principle, we have to take the M-L classics as the foundation and re-educate ourselves/begin-all-over-again by summing up the current conjuncture of developments on the world scale according to the DIRECTIONS which are clearly to be found in these classics. On that count, non-Marxist sources, regardless how well-informed on macro or micro-economic details of the current conjuncture, must be placed second in priority. The job of serious activists at this time is to sort out, in practical organising terms, the relationship between strengthening existing resistance struggles and preparing the ground for the revival of the flow of revolution. (If the fundamental M-L principles are not being reaffirmed in any of the contemporary contexts, we can forget about and write off any hopes for the latter prospect developing very far.) Comment Summing up our history means figuring out our moment of history. Doctrine of combat cannot define such. For instance Marx and Engel's altered their doctrine of combat - not their theory, to conform to changes in the proletarian movement. That is why in the Introduction to the Communist Manifesto they tell the reader that aspects of the program have been rendered obsolete my the passage of time. Lenin advanced a different doctrine of combat from that of Marx and Engels - not a different theory, based on the proletarian movement erupting as the result of the First World Imperialist War. During the eruption of the Second Imperialist World War the communist advanced a different doctrine of combat - not a different theory, in the form of the United Front and the People's War in the colonies of imperialism - China for instance. Today the classics are read understanding the differences between theory and doctrine. Marx capital is as important as when it was first written but we would hardly try and apply his program advanced in the Manifesto. In America no one in their right mind would try and advance Lenin's doctrine of the worker-peasant alliance, when their are no peasants in America. Surely the doctrine of People's War, as applied by Chairman Mao was important to China but has no application for modern America or the America of the past century. What we are seeking is the path of the proletarian revolution in the era of the speculator. The Hudson Interview is worth reading by communists, non communists and so-called ML's alike. What we need are more facts that describe our current reality and less ideological declarations. WL **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
In a few words, the world we live in today is not the world ruled by the financial-industrial sector of capital described by Lenin. Does this mean imperialism has disappeared and no longer exists? Of course not. Imperialism existed long before Lenin was born, or Marx for that matter. And it existed after both were long dead and gone. The struggle is to more accurately describe the world in which we live and consolidate a vision of what is possible, based on an accurate description of the world and then fight for this vision amongst the proletariat. Continually swearing to uphold Lenin and the dictatorship of the proletariat; while peeking under the dress of the proletariat and proclaiming how beautify and revolutionary it is more fitting for adolescence. Hudson does in fact give a clear meaning to the meaning of de industrialization. He calls it financializing the economy or debt financing as an aspect of dollar hegemony and this form of capital pushes a sector of capital and its complement in the form of the proletariat outside civic society or the economy. Of course, some my feel this is the repudiation of Lenin and that Enver described this phenomenon back in his 1978 article on Imperialism. All I ask is to produce the evidence so that other can independently reason their way through the issue of dollar hegemony and this new era of domination of the speculator or new non banking financial architecture. What the proletariat needs is clarity. WL **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
Dear comrades and friends, I usually don't have time to read Waistline's long and numerous posts, and tend not to reply because one gets bombarded with 5 replies to one statement. I presume that this is because Waistline is retired from work, but unfortunately seems to also be retired from the class struggle except to the degree that it takes place on the ML List. 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 - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:38 AM Subject: Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview In a few words, the world we live in today is not the world ruled by the financial-industrial sector of capital described by Lenin. Does this mean imperialism has disappeared and no longer exists? Of course not. Imperialism existed long before Lenin was born, or Marx for that matter. And it existed after both were long dead and gone. The struggle is to more accurately describe the world in which we live and consolidate a vision of what is possible, based on an accurate description of the world and then fight for this vision amongst the proletariat. Continually swearing to uphold Lenin and the dictatorship of the proletariat; while peeking under the dress of the proletariat and proclaiming how beautify and revolutionary it is more fitting for adolescence. Hudson does in fact give a clear meaning to the meaning of de industrialization. He calls it financializing the economy or debt financing as an aspect of dollar hegemony and this form of capital pushes a sector of capital and its complement in the form of the proletariat outside civic society or the economy. Of course, some my feel this is the repudiation of Lenin and that Enver described this phenomenon back in his 1978 article on Imperialism. All I ask is to produce the evidence so that other can independently reason their way through the issue of dollar hegemony and this new era of domination of the speculator or new non banking financial architecture. What the proletariat needs is clarity. WL **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.4.3/1526 - Release Date: 6/30/2008 8:43 AM ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
Let me thank Waistline again for saving me the time and effort of detailed refutation of his revisionist garbage and upchucking of bourgeois-economics commentary as some kind of Marxist advance in analysis of the current conjuncture. I could start with his howler about imperialism existing long before Lenin and Marx. Waistline's discourse on that point blithely ignores an especially acute observation by Lenin. Lenin stipulates that mere strivings for colonies and acts of colonisation have indeed existed for eons before Marx his own time BUT... such colonisations, foreign dominations etc. do not, repeat: do NOT, define the essence of the modern imperialism that Lenin was addressing. The essence of Marxism, as f580 nicely reminded everyone here just the other day, is the proletariat and its role in actual development to the next stage of human society, after bourgeois rule, without retaining bourgeois rule. The essence of Waistline's stuff, on the other hand, is the peaceful growing over of capitalism inevitably into socialism. Let's at least be clear, then, about the life form that is now unveiling itself before our eyes here here in the For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism MLL: Karl Kautsky reborn in the disguise of an African-American Detroit autoworker and revolutionary activist now retired to Florida! Who knew?!?!? A few of you may have noticed how Earl Karl Browder Waistline Kautsky has managed repeatedly to duck, bob and weave around my repeated invocation of the CHRONIC CRISIS OF CAPITALISM IN THE ERA OF IMPERIALISM. This is the same chronic crisis delineated by Lenin in Imperialism and alluded to once again, directly as well as indirectly, by J.V. Stalin in both his Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (1952) and his closing address to the 19th Congress of the CPSU(b). This is, of course, the real, central, issue, NOT the age of the speculator. dollar hegemony or any of the rest. Episodes such as dollar hegemony are transient epiphenomena and temporary symptoms that crop up sometimes for a decade and sometimes for a generation --- but they are not at all the essence of the question. Watching dollar hegemony work itself out is like watching a rat attempting to escape a maze --- many of whose passageways the rat itself created to catch and fool rivals from some earlier stage of the chronic crisis. The deeper meaning of all this was captured precisely and hilariously by The New Yorker cartoon of several decades ago, in which two lab rats are taking a 'breather' inside one of these mazes as one turns to the other and says: I've got him trained: every time I go for the food, he presses the button. This crack reminds us of Marx's famous injunction to the effect that the last place to look for actual enlightenment about the overall essential meaning of any historical period is in the words of those who participated in the struggles of that time with nothing but their own fragmentary consciousness as a guideline. The words of such participants are an excellent guide only to their own individual fragmentary consciousness. To understand the meaning and direction of an entire era, we must have a broader view and deeper, more extensive evidentiary basis that takes into account the past conditions that gave rise to the era and the new conditions that unfolded amidst that era, pointing to the future. I feel I must also reiterate here another point that Earl Karl Browder Waistline Kautsky has trouble with (and in which he is not alone): U.S. imperialism is, truly, done for. It is INDEED the turkey into which the entire rest of the forces fighting for peace, justice and a better world must and will stick the fork. The fact that various elements in the U.S. today, whether in movement directly or on the sidelines, don't get this does not change the conclusion. This conclusion is based on viewing the whole, the overall, and not just this or that fragment of movement space or time. (In terms of the movement that needs to be built and advance in the U.S., based in the fighting sections of the masses and led by the interests of the US-ian proletariat, certainly: U.S. imperialism does not appear to be done for internally yet: but again that is the OPTIC, not the reality.) The bigger picture to address here is as follows: in terms of the DEMONSTRATED INability of U.S. imperialism to finish anything it has started, since sinking into the Iraq quagmire and all the other sinkholes loosened into quicksand on other political-economic fronts since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, it is indeed done for. It is the world's LEADING failed state, certainly since Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. The collapse in this summer's heavy rains of a lot of the basic infrastructure associated with the Mississippi basin is reconfirming in spades the grave tragedy prepared over decades by the US Army Corps of
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
Dear comrades and friends, I usually don't have time to read Waistline's long and numerous posts, and tend not to reply because one gets bombarded with 5 replies to one statement. I presume that this is because Waistline is retired from work, but unfortunately seems to also be retired from the class struggle except to the degree that it takes place on the ML List. George Comment For the record I am retired and also work 40 hours a week plus. At 55 I am reasonably healthy, 6 feet tall and weigh 164 lbs. That is to say I sleep an average of 4 hours in a 24 hour period unless I have worked intensely. I take part in numerous social gathering and isolated political activity. In addition I am currently studying for EPA certification having studied some insurance courses with my wife a few months ago. Why you assume I do not work when I have stated repeatedly I work as basically a maintenance tech in an upscale community is beyond me. I sleep few hours because I practice what I preach about health and man as a metabolic process. The strongest medicine I have taken in roughly 10 years is an Alka Seltzer cold tablet. That is why I have time to write. Anyone that checks the time of most of my material will immediately see it is written and sent in between 4:00 am and 6:45 am my time zone. I learnt how to type in school at age 15. I type fast. And yes, I am long winded. Why the insults? Because I contribute and have taken care of myself and not fallen for bourgeois consumption that kills most Americans? When I enter a fasting mode every few years my sleep ribbon is altered and an 18 hour day is normal. Modern man is bourgeois in the culture sense and this includes culture with a little c and a big C. Comrade, I have no need to boast. I do not look 55 and avoided hospital most of my life. I refuse to eat from the table of the bourgeoisie and buy into none of its theories of medicine and health. A health man of 55 should be able to work 8 hours, go to all kinds of political meetings, spend time with his wife, talk with his grandchildren; have company over (Aunt Betty from children and her niece are staying in our home at this very moment and the niece spends hours on my computer) study a broad range of literature and then write. Why the sly insults? Because I advocate for communism in the here and now and not some pie in the sky scheme? This reply took about eight minutes. WL **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
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=aolaut000507) ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
The essence of Marxism, as f580 nicely reminded everyone here just the other day, is the proletariat and its role in actual development to the next stage of human society, after bourgeois rule, without retaining bourgeois rule. The essence of Waistline's stuff, on the other hand, is the peaceful growing over of capitalism inevitably into socialism. Let's at least be clear, then, about the life form that is now unveiling itself before our eyes here here in the For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism MLL: Karl Kautsky reborn in the disguise of an African-American Detroit autoworker and revolutionary activist now retired to Florida! Who knew?!?!? Comment Why the insults? I understand why when I reproduce material from internationally known and respected economists some comrades lapse into thick ideology without addressing the article. The title of this tread has something to do with Michael Hudson's interview. Comrade have not done their home work and rely on thick ideology to cover their shortcomings. It is easier to say I do not know. Comrade Intangible - you avoid the issue of dollar hegemony and the debt economy. You fail to understand that changes in the dominating form of capital have their corresponding changes in the proletariat and this is the reason Marx and Engles program for the proletariat gave way to a new set of tactics with the birth of the Second International and then with the rise of the financial-industrial oligarchy Lenin hammer out a different doctrine of class combat. Not a different theory of Marxism but a different doctrine. Did you know that none other than Engel's introduced the concept of that sector of capital writing the agenda? The title of the thread is Michael Hudson and modern economic reality and the new emerging polarity giving form to this stage of the class struggle. Comrade Enver cannot help us. The idea that the imperialism Lenin spoke of is monopoly and monopoly capital is laughable. Imperialism of which Lenin wrote is the domination of financial-industrial capital as distinct from industrial-banking capital. Reread Lenin and try not to isolate the feature of monopoly in a way that prevents you from understanding the meaning of financial oligarchy. Please continue to recover from heart surgery. The heart is an interesting organ of the body. When it grows cold we expire. Cold is a biological concept of the lack of electrical charge from the cells because the membrane is clogged with more than less mucus. This mucus is the decomposed material we have consumed for a lifetime. This substance block the flow of blood. Purges the party or rather body is an ancient and mans most noble and historic record of awareness of his own metabolic process. To be cold hearted in human history has a meaning. All of my theory has a material reality that is to be lived in the here and now. Marx insights are on my side. Lenin's thoughts inform me. The will of Stalin guides me. I was born generational of the lowest strata of the proletariat with family member able to raise themselves to the highest paid sector of the world proletariat. I am the same mutherfucker riding or walking. Proletarian Unite means something different to me and not a lens of the children of the settler states. I mean what Lenin and Marx mean,, which is why both spoke of the lowest strata of the proletariat as the real proletarian masses. Dudes . . . James Brown song a whole record about the matter. Money won;t change you, but time will take you out. Til victory is won/one. 15 minutes. Wl **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ 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
Re: [MLL] domination of the speculator: Micheal Hudson Interview
In a message dated 7/3/2008 4:18:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Comment Really Naval power. This is what I wrotew and I will show what you wrote I wrote. 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. This line of argument is concrete. Listen to what you said I wrote . 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. You forget the means by which people are conquered. You forget your Marxism. WL **Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut000507) ___ 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
