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 

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!


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to