====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
What's the big deal. Marx wrote like that. And if you do every write like that Louis, rather than slap you, I think I'd take your temperature and check you for a rash. Anyway, before we go further down this path... since it's data Lou wants, let's keep in mind that my question was a question originally asking for definition, evidence, data regarding "semi-colonialism" and that Brazil was "semi-colonialist." So the challenge is to all those who think being "for Lula against Europe and America" has any meaning whatsoever when Lula himself is hardly against Europe, against America. -----Original Message----- >From: Louis Proyect <[email protected]> >Sent: Jun 5, 2010 6:52 PM >To: David Schanoes <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [Marxism] Is Imperialism a different mode of production? > >====================================================================== >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/sartesian%40earthlink.net ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
