Before answering to Mark, just a comment and question about Tahir's URL:
>Here's an interesting website on the 'open borders' issues:
>http://www.dsl.nl/lokabaal/english.htm
This is from "de fabel van de illegaal", a group which attacked the anti-MAI
campaign because it was supported by far-right groups, right? Does anyone
think that this kind of sectarian attitude will get us anywhere? That said, it's
important that someone says those things even if I agree with their conclusion
and they probably do great work on the ground.
Nestor,
>My
>definition is just a recasting of the definition by Lenin which, in
>its essence, was taken from the English economist Hobson.
The trouble is that you recast it in different ways than other on this list, maybe
because of the grey zones you talk about. Hobson's understanding of
imperialism was also different.
>That is, I try to stick
>to a definition which puts order into the chaos and raises new
>issues. Other definitions are not necessarily that deep.
What I don't know is whether this definition still puts in order something after the
grey zones have been taken into account. Does the definition apply to history
as is or does the definition put history in a straightjacket? I would like to see a
coherent Leninst definition on which the list can agree to have a better idea.
>>Or do you argue that there is only one
>> imperialism?
>
>Yes. That is exactly what I mean. This is what Lenin meant, by the
>way.
Kautsky! ;-)
Seriously, do you mean that all the surplus-extracting states of the world are
united? I'm not sure I understand.
>... "You
>shall be what you have to be, or you will be nothing!" Well, we are
>facing that alternative every time. Same will happen to Indonesians
>and Timorese, same happens to the whole of humankind in fact.
>...historic destiny...
I do not share that deterministic faith. I want some kind of evidence before
believing. Faiths are thing you make bloodbaths and gruesome mental
illnesses with.
>This is quite an insulting paragraph, so that sorry if I answer with
>some anger.
Frankly, neither my post nor yours looks in any way like an insult compared to
what some others have posted. Please accept my excuses if you were
insulted.
>1. You are quite an ignorant on these issues, it looks like you speak
>because air is for free! Slavery was stamped away from the USA for
>ever, racism remained
I don't claim a serious knowledge of the American civil war. But I know enough
to tell you that you got that fact wrong. It was ended later, and no one knows
whether it will come back. I will say nothing else on that topic because it's off-
topic. I'll just say that I agree with roughly half of your interpretations.
>I hate wars, but I do not shun at them, in
>the same way that if you attempt to intrude into my house and try to
>steal me you will not have a warm, tender reception.
What did the South do to the North in 1861 or a bit before? It's the North who
entered the South's house. And what did the albanians do to the Serbs in
1980+? Disclaimer: I don't support the NATO scum.
>On the Kossovo issue, I am
>for rejection of the interventionists by any means possible, and on
>the American Civil War I would have been for rejection of the Anglo-
>Southerner alliance.
But we nevertheless stand on the same side in the end.
>Too much neutrality has somehow dimmed your mental abilities on this
>issue, Julien.
Or too much talking to the albanians and other human beigns and never
meeting a state who said hello to me maybe.
BTW, to someone else you said:
>They are the ruling classes in the First World,
>the true enemies of anything human (and natural) on this globe today.
>Whatever benefits them is, certainly, for our tragedy.
Is it not a little bit too manichean to look like an analysis of the real world?
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
