In a message dated 1/18/2011 10:04:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31450@gmail.com_ (  writes: 

Hear , hear,  . . . . 

Thanks CB. The intent was a general summary agreeable of the  broadest 
Marxist framework and divergent views of Lenin's meaning of  imperialism. The 
past decade of discussion of neo-liberalism as a regime is akin  to saying 
Does today's Latin America represent colonies or neo-colonies of American  
imperialism? Or political states occupying a "certain position" within the 
new  financial and military architecture?  Colonialism was a specific  
economic-social-political relation rather than just "big states," "little  
or no state, oppressing peoples and oppressed peoples, etc. 
A couple of days ago was the 50 anniversary of the assassination of Lumumba 
 and occasion to rethink the question of transition to the neo-colonial 
state and  its subsequent development. The legacy of colonialism is alive and 
well in the  Congo and throughout much of the former colonial world. 
Yet, this is not ones father's imperialism. 
The investment banker and scholar Henry C.K. Liu, who is more communist  
than 90% of American Marxists, called today's imperialism "neo-imperialism" in 
 the context of a decade of writings focused on the new form of finance 
capital.  Liu deploys concepts such as "capital as a notional value" meaning an 
imaginary  value or lacking the surplus value dimensions that characterized 
the  financial-industrial capital of which Lenin wrote. 
Liu calls speculative capital "speculative finance," buttressed by a new  
non-banking financial architecture and operating as a notional value in a  
monetary system of fiat money or rather currency. His premise is that 
financial  architecture is by definition different from economy that is 
of  products, although the interactive of both must be examined in the 
concrete.  Thus he speaks of monetary policy - not as a thing in itself, but as 
distinct  political form of rule over the economy. 
I think. 
One would have to ask him exactly what he means but his meaning seems  
crystal clear to me - a decade later, thousands of hours of reading later and  
shifting through his all of his writings. 
Liu is a communist with money. I mean communist in the sense of the  
movement that erupted with the dissolution of primitive communism. 
Liu calls for a system of sovereign birth credits - entitlement or economic 
 communism in the here and now, allowing the individual a lifetime of 
socially  necessary means of life. Being born with an entitlement as the social 
contract,  means a mode of distribution not requiring a previous or prior 
contribution of  labor as the means for consumption. It is left to society to 
reorganize itself  to meet all it reproduction needs. A freaking banker is 
more progressive than  many of the communists and Marxists. 
All of this is part of describing the new world we face and practical  
solutions. "Neo-imperialism" or "neo-finance capital," might be the term we are 
Sovereign birth credits or birth rights as the mode of production and  
specific architecture of economic communism is something to think about. 
Go figure. 

Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to