Jim Heartfield: Here George is
abusing the appearance-essence category by making it into a dogmatic insistence
on the correctness of his analysis even where it is contradicted by appearance.
No matter what the evidence is, he is saying, the essence is reactionary, so you
do not have to pay attention to any facts that might contradict that
essence.
George Pennefather: Facts always
merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the
establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of
the essence of imperialism.
Jim: But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has been technological progress because there *has been* technological progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away.
Jim: But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has been technological progress because there *has been* technological progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away.
George: Under imperialism form
contradicts content. The forms of production, capitalist social relations of
production, retard the development of the forces of production which is why
capitalist forms lead to the development of technology in the form of nuclear
weapons etc. --a technology that is not "progressive".
Jim: The dialectical approach would posit the contradiction *within* the essence itself. In other words, capitalism combines destructive and creative elements. It develops the forces of production, but on a narrow and exploitative basis.
Jim: The dialectical approach would posit the contradiction *within* the essence itself. In other words, capitalism combines destructive and creative elements. It develops the forces of production, but on a narrow and exploitative basis.
George: I never denied that the
essence of contemporary capitalism is not contradictory. Of course it is which
is why there necessarily obtains a contradictory relationship between essence
and appearance under imperialist capitalism.
Jim: The definition of imperialism is not one in which no progress is possible, as Lenin makes abundantly clear, but rather one in which the destructive features predominate over the progressive, making imperialism as a totality negative, but not denying that there can be progressive developments within it. One such, for example, is the numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that is
reactionary.
Jim: The definition of imperialism is not one in which no progress is possible, as Lenin makes abundantly clear, but rather one in which the destructive features predominate over the progressive, making imperialism as a totality negative, but not denying that there can be progressive developments within it. One such, for example, is the numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that is
reactionary.
George: Jim's artificial
construction of a false dichotomy between the alleged positive and negative
features of imperialism constitutes an ideological illusion which opens a window
for the entry of reformist politics. It creates ideological justification for
promoting putative good side of capitalism as opposed to the putative side.
If capitalism has a progressive character and even essence then there is no
necessary reason why the quantitative or mathematical relation between the good
and bad sides of imperialism cannot be reconfigured --a reformist
notion.
The numerical growth of the working
class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the
biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character
--essentially it supports American imperialism.
The issue is not so much a matter
as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to
have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. Today it is the
political character of the working class that is significant and not as
some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. The objective
conditions for communist revolution have been present for some time now
--whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant.
Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better
the politics.
Anyway even Jim's abstract claim
that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of
dialectics. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class
is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. The making of abstract
statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the
debate.
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]
