Chris I owe you an apology. I looked up your references below to Hardt and
Negri and was genuinely surprised that I should be echoing their logic, in
passing I also read some other interesting points they raise.
What can I say except that they come at things from an angle which I find
strained and oblique and at first put me off anything they were saying - I
now find I must read them in detail. Strangely I had raised similar matters
on other listservers where "Empire" was being discussed (universally
criticized) and no one raised the point you have and for that I am grateful
as I long believed I was the only one who saw this and thought it important.
At 22:59 25/09/01 +0100, you wrote:
>However the issue of super or ultra imperialism appears to be pertinently
>discussed in detail by Hardt and Negri on pages 229 and 230 of Empire.
>
>They argue that while Lenin adopted the analytical propositions of
>Hilferding and Kautsky he strongly rejected their political conclusions.
>
>The analysis hinges on the process of equalisation of the rate of profit.
>Hilferding argued that "the domination and division of the world market by
>monopolies had made the process of equalixation virtually impossible. Only
>if the national central banks were to intervene, or better, if a unified
>international bank were to intervene, could this contradiction, which
>portends both trade wars and fighting wars, be equalized and placated."
It seems I have much catching up to do before I raise anything worthwhile
and for this I apologise to all those on this list.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia.
