Hello Simon,
When you write:
> that imperialism is (arguably) the current international capitalist relationship
> does not mean that our definition of capitalism is somehow inadequate
What is the relationship between the two part of the sentance as
they do not seem to logicall follow. Surely a definition of
capitalism which does not take into account it curent international
relationship is inadequate. While I may share the fear about those
who seek to 'update' Marxism it is equally wrong to have the view
that every part of his economic theory is unaltered by the continuous
developments within capitalism. His own positions changed within his
life-time and if you count Engels as a Marxist (which perhaps you
don't) then clearly by the 1880s thing had changed a lot. Marx may
have said much more if he had lived to write volume six of Captial
but the task was left to others. And it continues constantly.
> I am saying that there is nothing magical about the universe giving
> agency to it, consciously or unconsciously.
No one is arguing that the universe chooses to be dialectical no more
than gravity chooses to put things onto the floor.
> I am showing
> then that a dialectical WAY of seeing the world, thus acting on the world,
> and thus changing it over time, is supported by such a materialist
> position.
>From this do you think that dialectics is confined to social
relations or to nature. Or just WAY merely apply to an appearence of
dialectics in nature. Do you disagree with Engels (and possibly
Marx) or do you think that blind devotion to his theory is the
problem?
Sorry have to go stop there but I will pick up on a few other things
from that post if it is not too annoying!
Regards,
John
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
