Julien, I meant to post this message to the list, knowing
that you are not keen on offlist postings, like some other
people. So, my mistake, but here it is again for the list:
Julien, you are exhausting and obviously don't have to work
for a living (or else you are a relentless insomniac). I
don't intend to go head to head with you for another ten
posts about the meaning of 'primitive accumulation' and
whether or not your description of India fits whichever
understanding of this term better than mine, etc.. I promise
to come back soon on the question of how capitalism is
sustained by inter alia expansion into the more backward
regions of the world, since this is a question that
interests me, but I need more time to do so. One of the
examples I would like to discuss a bit more is that of South
Africa and how the migrant labour system was part of this
very same syndrome (and still is in fact). Your stuff about
"this is how capitalism normally exploits people" is way
closer to my earlier points than to Nestor's on imperialism.
It IS always and everywhere about reduction of labour costs
and that's why I do think there is something in
globalisation. It is about shifting industries to regions
where labour costs are lower and trying to turn the places
where mainly white people live into 'clean' administrative
centres and to turn the former colonies into the Dickensian
sorts of places where production happens on the cheap. Sorry
this is very informal and rushed, but I do need to say
enough already!
Later...
Tahir
>>> "Julien Pierrehumbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 08/28 5:21 PM
>>>
Here are a few clarifications and reformulating of
questions. I thought I might as
well not burden the list with it. However, I suggest lower
things which you could
post about.
>Ask Nestor. I was responding to his claim that all this
>anti-imperialist struggle brings down the rate of profit.
>Did you miss that? So ask him how you measure it. He must
>know if he says things like that?
I did understand what he said. What you said puzzled me and
I know there are
several ways of defining "rate of profit" within marxists.
Hence the question. I
thought you would know because you answered him with an
affirmation, not a
question. So if you want to post to the list a little
explanation of this theory of
yours (I'm not suggesting that you made it up, only that I
didn't encounter it
before, at least in that form) about exploitation of the
non-capitalist world and
the rate of profit, you're welcome. This is much more
interesting for me than
anti-imperialism and the rate of profit. That connection is
very straightforward
IF you think that the rate of profit in the imperial
countries is the one which
matters, as Nestor seemed to think.
>I am arguing that the revolutionaries should not do the
>bourgeoisie's job for them by administering a capitalist
>state.
This means that you think that communist parties should not
take part in a
bourgeois government like the French one repeatedly did?
This would indeed
make sense.
You seemed to be say that fighting for a reformist program
was nevertheless a
good idea in some situations. I got you right? If so, then
you will have no
choice but to critically support non-revolutionary
organizations since you
seem to think that worthy revolutionary organizations do not
administer
capitalism. Whatever your long term program is if you choose
to fight for
reformist stuff in the here and now you'll have "disgusting
bourgeois
reformists" on your side. Are you going to stand on their
side or to kick them in
the back? This is what I meant when I said that you didn't
have to give up
marxism to support something else. Maybe I should have added
"temporarily"
but I thought that was understood.
>Who else should he have supported? The enemy?
Once the insurrection has happend, of course not. I guess
that wasn't the
situation you had in mind when you talked about fighting for
better working
conditions, etc.
>There is no evidence that anarchists are able to manage
this
>sort of process at all (capitalist modernisation).
Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by "agrarian
revolution". I was
thikning about Aragon during the civil war.
>'Plan B' is then better, to push
>the envelope within the capitalist state to make the
>conditions for socialism more favourable without falling
>into the trap of doing the bourgeoisie's job for them, i.e.
>taking over THEIR state and running it for them. This
>position is not reformism - it is still aimed at the
>overthrow of capitalism at the very first moment that it
>becomes possible. Reformism is something that says that
>capitalism is not so bad if you can eliminate the nasty
bits
>like fascism, racism, sexism, etc. I don't buy this for one
>moment. The forward movement towards the goal of socialism
>and the dismantling of nation states is everything.
We did have different definitions for reformism, which may
have been the
cause of past confusion. For me reformism was the actions
and strategies, not
the philosophy and the long-term goals. Besides, I always
thought the primary
goal of it was dividing the pie in a way more favourable to
labour and
detrimental to capital within the current system. What you
say (getting rid of
racism, etc.) looks more like anglo-saxon liberalism.
Talking of these issues
alone strikes me as bourgeois moralism (I'm obviously not
suggesting that
this is your postition but rather that you may still not
have seen genuine
reformists).
>So the
>freeze frame is stopping this dance at somewhere around
1910
>and saying "now we know what the final stage of capitalism
>is all about". I think this is rubbish.
OK. I get it. Never say "final"!
>Globalisation as we
>know it today is something not at all projected in Lenin's
>pamphlet, nor is Lenin's imperialism such a definitely
>different 'stage' than the capitalism already described
>comprehensively by Marx.
I have been struggling for years to understand what's behind
this
"globalisation"
thing that everybody talks about. The only special thing
about our times I've
been able to figure is US hegemony, but the word seem to be
used for
seomthing else. If you indeed think that there's something
significant out there
apart from US hegemony, could you explain it (how it
contradicts Lenin, f.ex.)?
I've noted that globalisation is used in a somewhat vulgar
manner by some list
members. A little discussion of that in historical
perspective might be fruitful,
but I don't want to start it alone.
>Hope that answers your questions satisfactorily.
You dodged a few, but OK. Happy to see that we can
communicate without
jumping at each other's throats. ;-) BTW, excuse me for
misreading you on
Cuba.
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
