From: Hari Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 10:31:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said: This is why I keep saying
(though I haven't said it on this list yet) that those who want social
change have to stop focussing on the working class
Romain Kroes wrote:
Lenin's theory is reducible to the human-nature metaphysics, while Rosa
Luxemburg's continues the scientific Marxism that have been ignored, even
censored by both reformists and Leninists for almost ninety years. So
that two solutions are possible:
either to build
Chris Burford writes:
And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by the
enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the
conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old
ones.
You know what, because Marx's body of
I noticed that the work of Gunder Frank is featured on the PEN-L archives page, and i read a few samples wherein he counters wallerstein with the idea that the world-system is 5000 years old, not 500 years.
I was wondering -- would anyone on the list be willing to give me a short summary on how
Re: the imperialism discussion of a few days ago, i was wondering if the list had any comments about my question about the lenin-luxemburg disagreement about the nature of imperialism. I recently studied up on this disagreement. as far as i could make out, while lenin believes that imperialism is
In my opinion, Romain Kroes introduced some very interesting material to the list in the "Imperialism in decline?" discussion. I recently studied Luxemburg's book, accumulation of capital. i thought it made a lot of sense from just considering the definition of exploitation -- being paid less than
On 04 July 2002, Louis Proyect wrote:
One of the curiosities of the academic left is the tendency of various figures to agree with each other on broad questions without sharing a common ideological framework. For example, neo-Althusserian Stephen Resnick has the same exact "state capitalist"
The problem is that whatever their faults may be (and I personally thinktheir work is pretty worthless), it is bizarre to accuse Hardt/Negri oflacking a dialectical approach. It might be better to say that theirerror is dialectics run wild, escaped from all grounding in empiricalreality.
thanks,
I wondered if the list would have any opinions on some specific arguments from the ANTHRO-L list re: the labor theory of value. All of the following have to do with the idea that value derives not from labor, but from supply and demand.
1. Supply and demand is the constraint [on the amount of
I am on another listserve, ANTHRO-L, which sometimes turns political -- there are a few good marxist anthropologists on it. a few months ago, i was discussing the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of the labor theory of value. to me, it seems self-evident that the richer the rich get, the
10 matches
Mail list logo
