late response >>> Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 04/29/99 04:45PM >>> Charles: >I can't tell if you are opposing the Marxist idea that capitalist wars are integral to the capitalist system; or whether you are saying that this war is an exception. < neither. I was opposing crude economic determinism and teleology (i.e., something like profiteering from a Marshall-type plan occurs _because_ it was planned ahead of time by NATO). (((((((((((((((((( Chas.: I'd say mystified, inability to find ruthless economic motives in capitalists is much more of a problem than seeing economic determinism and teleology, crude or otherwise. The bourgeoisie should not be seen as lacking vulgar and vicious motives and plans. To declare that they would not crudely plan ahead of time to profiteer from this war and others is very misleading. The capitalists promote, demand and require a gigantic , standing military. They don't have to specifically plan to profiteer from the recovery financing of a given war. It just naturally follows. Thus, they require their governments to be militarist in general and to wage war as an ongoing institution. It is quite naive to dismiss the idea that sectors of the bourgeoisie would not plan to make money off of NATO's attack in every which way ahead of time, including the post-war Marshall Plan type plan in Yugoslavia. They may let Clinton pick the particular time and place, but what they demand is a standing institution of war with all the attendant money making opportunities. Otherwise you portray the bourgeoisie as lucky innocent bystanders who reap a windfall. >From a theoretical standpoint "economic determinism and teleology" is not an error at >this level of analysis. Those are criticisms of a more general level of analysis. A >specific event can economically determined and teleological, in the sense that it is >directed to a specific goal. ((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((( All wars are different. All have some similar bases in capitalism, i.e., in trying to cope with class antagonisms by external means and as a result of competition amongst capitals. But there are also a lot of other things that change over time -- such as the nature of the hegemonic power, opposition from non-capitalist systems (like the USSR) -- so that each war is different. (((((((((((((((((((((( Chas: Yes, all wars are different, but each is not an entirely unique event. Science is an effort to find general patterns that are common to a group of phenomena. The common feature of capitalist wars is that are motivated by profiteering in many ways. This war is not an exception to that general pattern. Like all capitalist wars, it has vulgar economic motives underlying the welter of other surface dimensions. >I don't think the Marxist idea is that all the specific consequences of , say, WWI were intended and planned out in detail. The idea is that after it is over, they will work out the details of how to profit off of the destruction.< then we agree. gotta go... ((((((((((( Peace CB
