====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
It's not about gospels, or sin, or being so snide you can claim you're not being snide. I'm not the one who made any special claims for Brazil, or Lula. I'm not the one claiming that capitalism in Brazil is somehow more humane, more progressive than capitalism in the US or Japan or France. I'm not the one arguing that "an entire people," which by definition includes the bourgeoisie of Brazil, or Argentina, or Ecuador, or Bolivia has been oppressed by the imperialist plunder of advance capitalist countries, particularly given the fact that the imperialist plunder was generally executed by non-capitalist Spain, and that Brazil was never subjugated economically to any advanced capitalist country. I'm not the one, or ones, claiming "modernity" in the analysis of imperialism, yet when called upon to justify the cheer-leading for the bourgeoisie of so-called "third world" countries, producing nothing but references to events, incidents, actions, that are over 100 years old. And I'm not the one spewing epithets like "imperialist privilege" at those who don't agree with the pom-poming for Correa, Lula, and the Kirchners. What has been asked is what every Marxist should ask. HOW have all these things occurred? What are the mechanisms for accumulation? Why do we have to ask that? Because if we're Marxists we know that those very mechanisms of accumulation contains the prospects for the negation of that accumulation. That's why. That's why the issue of the mode of production is so central... at least to Marx. We call that historical materialism. If it's not important to Joaquin or Dr. Barrera let them explain why. ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
