====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
Right, right. Joaquin laid a trap... after laying out what he thought in detail. Sure he did. Here's what he said: "On modes of production, not going there" Which doesn't stop JB from going here: "b) These superprofits make it possible for the bourgeoisie to create a privileged strata of workers within the imperialist countries and to make the working class of those countries in their big majority privileged in comparison to the world working class as a whole. This is the material basis for opportunism in the labor movement as well as national chauvinism among workers of dominant nationalities in the imperialist countries" So-- no answer on modes of production, but somehow we get "superprofits"-- without defining what superprofits are, and we get those superprofits bribing a not just a labor aristocracy but the big majority of workers in the advanced countries.... But no, not going anywhere near the mode of production, because.. because JB gets dizzy when there's anything that requires concrete data for... the effects of the mode of production. Much better to posture around the ideological positions derived from data that 20 years old when Lenin was writing his pamphlet, and the interpretation of which by Lenin is painfully, and transparently mistaken. There are no potshots here. Periodically, JB reproduces these "points" about imperialism in support of his rah-rahing for Lula, or Morales, or his radical of the week. Sometimes he even specifies where the superprofits come from-- but then those specifics have been refuted here-- regarding unequal exchange, royalty payments ["rents"] and the "superprofits" themselves. JB has yet to answer any of those refutations, because of course, they all involve the actual mode of production, which makes JB dizzy. And by the way, the dizziness is quite evident in what JB does submit-- dizziness to the point of self-delusion where, big game hunter that he is, JB, popgun at ready with the safety off, decides to give us all an example of how he has penetrated the core of Lenin's iceberg without analyzing the mode of production. Somehow of course, that revolutionary anti-imperialist iceberg takes us not into a collision course with the Titanic of advanced capitalism, or with capitalism as a "world system," but rather the iceberg is taken into tow as supply of drinking water for the Lulas, the Kirchners, the Sukharnos, of the world. Now maybe there's such a thing in this modern world as imperialism, and maybe there isn't. But saying so doesn't make it so. And if there is imperialism then it is based on a particular mode of production. It is derived from, and manifests itself, that mode of production. Pointing out that those who want to avoid the issue are doing so out of their incapabilities in understanding and explaining what they already assume, is not a manifestation of "imperialist privilege." It's called Marxism. Anytime JB wants to define "semi-colonial," particularly with regard to Brazil, a settler state that established it nationalism in a reaction against the anti-feudal incursion of the French bourgeoisie into its mother country, and which constituted itself as the seat of an empire; which fed its uneven development with the blood of slaves until 1888, which was never subjugated or subordinated to any advanced country as Cuba was, as the Philippines were, as Indonesia was.... anytime JB wants to take time out from laying traps I remain ready and willing to take my anti-vertigo medication and deal. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joaquín Bustelo" <jbust...@bellsouth.net> ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
