Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Anti-imperialism is almost dead is in large parts of Asia (Palestinian
struggle excluded) and there is no sign that it will be revived in the
forseable future. Thus, the contradiction between Asia and the developed
world is not present either.
BTW, the binary image of the
Doug Henwood wrote:
I'm sympathetic to what you're saying, but I'd like to hear more. Why
is anti-imperialism dead? Don't Indian farmers, for example, resent
and resist the demands of the WTO? Or are internal class conflicts
more relevant now, given the industrialization and
9. Foreign policy issues are not important domestic politics. Why should
they be important? We are free and independent nation. Marxists,
particularly of anti-imperialist variety, don't appreciate that calling
independent nations 'semi-colonies' and 'peripheries' is the worst possible
insult.
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27739] Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas:9. Foreign policy issues are not important domestic politics. Why should they be important? We are free and independent nation. Marxists, particularly of anti-imperialist variety, don't appreciate that calling independent nations
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27741] RE: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas:9. Foreign policy issues are not important domestic politics. Why should they be important? We are free and independent nation. Marxists, particularly of anti-imperialist variety, don't appreciate that calling independent
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
1. Domestic prices of grain are higher than prices in the world market. But
Indian government fixes prices every year. These prices are
annually hiked. Such increases are disproportionate to the domestic rate of
inflation. The government is committed to procure any
How does this comport with Vandana Shiva's dire tales of Indian
farmers miserably exploited by international agribusiness and the
gene modifiers?
Doug
Ulhas was writing about rich farmers, not the poor majority. Why he did is
anybody's guess. It is like asking somebody about the situation of
Doug Henwood :
How does this comport with Vandana Shiva's dire tales of Indian
farmers miserably exploited by international agribusiness and the
gene modifiers?
The question Doug asked was about the WTO and its impact on Indian farmers.
So I answered accordingly. Poor farmers hardly have any
Ulhas:
The question Doug asked was about the WTO and its impact on Indian farmers.
So I answered accordingly. Poor farmers hardly have any surpluses to be
affected by the WTO. Doug's question was not about the state of poor and
marginal farmers.
Subject: Massive mobilisation in India against the
New Delhi, Jan 11, 2000
While more than 200 activists were staging a demonstration outside,
three protestors sneaked into a heavily guarded venue session of the
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Partnership Meet 2000, here
today. WTO Director General Mike Moore had just finished speaking
I am not sure Marxists have a coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism.
Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today?
Ulhas
Not only Marxists have no coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism, but
they are prisoners of a contradiction between Lenin's theory and Rosa
Luxemburg's.
For
Romain Kroes:
On the other hand, the exogenous realizing surplus value allows a
theoretical approach of both imperialism history and today's
Globalization, by taking together Luxemburg's and Wallerstein's works.
Does the idea of the exogenous realising of surplus value imply the
existence
that contributed to U.S. hegemony
are the same factors that will inexorably produce the coming U.S. decline.
"The United States in decline" is an awkward expression for me. "Imperialism in decline" is not so much awkward as in need of explanation. "Capitalism or capital in
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
I am not sure Marxists have a coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism.
Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today?
There are theories of imperialism, not a coherent theory if by coherent
you mean unitary. The same is true of the national question, etc. In
Does the idea of the exogenous realising of surplus value imply the
existence non-capitalist modes of production? Are there any such
geographical and sociological spaces left in any part of the world for
the realisation surplus value?
Ulhas
There are very few spaces left, now.
Jim Devine wrote,
Of course, it's hard to figure out some times when one stage begins and
another ends.
1. 1851 - 1914
2. 1914 - 1945
3. 1945 - 1975
4. 1975 - 1991
5. 1991 - 2001
Just a suggestion.
Tom Walker
604 254 0470
Romain Kroes wrote,
But as in besieged Bysance, scholars are still busy discussing the sex of
angels.
Or waiting breathlessly to see what the corpse will do for an encore.
Tom Walker
604 254 0470
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27676] Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Romain Kroes writes:Not only Marxists have no coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism, but they are prisoners of a contradiction between Lenin's theory and Rosa Luxemburg's.
does this conclusion follow from a full search
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today?
The minute Japan and the EU begin an arms buildup and fight with the
U.S. for influence in the so-called South, and U.S., EU, and Japanese
capitalists withdraw their investments in each other - maybe.
Doug
Romain Kroes wrote:
Geographically, the whole world is
already more or less integrated into the net of the financial markets.
But how deeply rooted is this net, to mix metaphors hideously? In
national economies, the financial system is deeply bound up with
issues of ownership and control of
RE: [PEN-L:27676] Re: e: Imperialism in decline?James Devine writes: I
disagree. Marx showed very clearly that capitalism need not suffer from
chronic realization problems, i.e., that it was _possible_ for surplus-value
to be realized internal to the system.
- But Marx did not succeed
Doug wrote:
(...) Lots of international capital flows are just hot money
moving in and out. They inject and withdraw liquidity, but don't
necessarily get deeply involved in the local scene. Direct investment
is another matter.
- But what about the resultant of capital flows? If this
Tom Walker wrote: Or waiting breathlessly to see what the corpse will do
for an encore.
- Where? On Venus?
Doug Henwood wrote:
Ulhas Joglekar wrote:
Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today?
The minute Japan and the EU begin an arms buildup and fight with the
U.S. for influence in the so-called South, and U.S., EU, and Japanese
capitalists withdraw their investments in each other -
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27654] Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas: And what is Imperialism in the first place?
Imperialism, as Marxists use that term, refers to a social system of international domination, of most countries by others. (Unlike in other perspectives, it is not simply
Devine, James:
Ulhas:And what is Imperialism in the first place?
Imperialism, as Marxists use that term, refers to a social system of
international domination, of most countries by others. (Unlike in other
perspectives, it is not simply a policy, a decision by government
officials.) Originally
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"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 04 July 2002, Louis Proyect wrote:
Since
Wallerstein (and Resnick and Hardt-Negri) lacks a dialectical approach
to the USSR, no wonder this point would be lost on him.
Thanks to Louis for furnishing the reference from Wallerstein. Since I
have not
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,
From: Nancybrumback:
thanks, carrol, for your response. however, the question was what is a
dialectical approach in the first place?
And what is Imperialism in the first place?
Ulhas
(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 analysis of the USSR as people like
31 matches
Mail list logo
