====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Angelus Novus wrote: > > Hardt and Negri never take issue with Lenin, they simply regard his > concrete analysis as obsolete. Didn't the caterpillar say something like this to Alice? > For Marx, in capitalist society social labor is mediated by the blind > operation of value, and social relations of domination and > exploitation do not occur directly, such as in feudal relations, but > rather through the mediation of reified social forms (value, the > state, law). If anybody ever finds me writing in this fashion, they have permission to slap me in the face with a mackerel. > > In Lenin's conception, there is no longer any space for the operation > of value, because monopoly lords directly control the economy in an > unmediated way. The state is also reduced to a mere instrument of > these rulers. In short, political and economic rule is exercised in > a completely unmediated fashion; Marx's notion of the fetishism of > bourgeois social relations is tossed out the window. Oh, I see. > > So that is probably what Milios and Sotiropoulos point out on a > theoretical level. Sounds about right. Too bad they are not interested in the concrete reality of relationships between countries like the USA and India involving the WTO, Bhopal, and other messy details. > At the empirical level, where of course a critique also has to be > done, I think Doug Henwood writes rather convincingly in _Wall > Street_ that at least as far as the notions that Lenin adopted from > Hilferding, they are nonsense/no longer apply. I don't agree with Doug on imperialism, but at least his work is brimming with concrete analysis of concrete reality. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
