In a message dated 1/18/2011 10:04:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _cb31450@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes:
Hear , hear, . . . . CB 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 "neo-imperialism." 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 states" 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. II. 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 production 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 a 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 seeking. Sovereign birth credits or birth rights as the mode of production and specific architecture of economic communism is something to think about. Go figure. Waistline. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
