Jim Heartfield: Progressive
imperialism? I have often been criticised for insisting on the persistence of
progressive trends within capitalism, such as the (intermittent) development of
productivity, but it would not have occurred to me to insist on the progressive
aspect of imperialism.
As I read it Lenin's characterisation of imperialism was not simply a euphemism for military intervention, but precisely the predomination of capitalism's reactionary side over its progressive. Lenin proposes as an
example of the progressive side, the application of science to production, with large monopolies. But the struggle for the division and re-division of the world by the decadent nations, he counts as reactionary, and I tend to agree with him.
As I read it Lenin's characterisation of imperialism was not simply a euphemism for military intervention, but precisely the predomination of capitalism's reactionary side over its progressive. Lenin proposes as an
example of the progressive side, the application of science to production, with large monopolies. But the struggle for the division and re-division of the world by the decadent nations, he counts as reactionary, and I tend to agree with him.
George Pennefather : It is
not, as Jim suggests, a quantitative undialectical matter of "the
predomination of capitalism's reactionary side over its progressive". Capitalism
today is essentially reactionary in character. Any features which Jim may
describe as progressive have in fact a reactionary essence whose source is
located in the dialectical. What Jim describes as the progressive features
of capitalism today are merely devices to perpetuate capitalism as a reactionary
system and are thereby correspondingly reactionary. Capitalism today is a
reactionary system which means that the bits that Jim labels as
progressive constitute component parts of the overall system which means that
their essence is determined by their existence as constituents in the overall
system. Since the system, as a whole, is reactionary so to are its parts.
Capitalism must be conceived systemically. Jim pedestrianally mistakes
appearance for essence. Capitalism must be conceived and analysed as a
dialectical unity whereby the essence of the parts are determined by the essence
of the whole --internal relations as opposed to external relations.
Warm regards
George Pennefather
George Pennefather
Be free to check out our Communist
Think-Tank web site at
http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/
Be free to subscribe to our
Communist Think-Tank mailing community by
simply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
simply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
