subject:"\[Marxism\] Lenin's Imperialism, was\: Question on the Far Right"

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Grossman is referring to the conceptually isolated capitalism..., and is 
identifying nothing other than one aspect of the formation of the general 
average rate of profit based on the difference between cost price and price 
of production, itself derived from the socially necessary labor time for 
reproduction.  Real capitalism, of course, is not so conceptually isolated.

Grossman's conceptual isolation does not exactly translate into an advanced 
COUNTRY as an entire COUNTRY making a surplus profit at the cost of a less 
advanced COUNTRY is a conceptual reification.  Profits don't accrue to 
countries, are not extracted from countries, but from the social 
organization of labor, from classes and to classes.

I love Grossman too, just not this part.

Lenin is hardly a punching bag, hardly the old down on his luck defenseless 
rummy forced back into the ring in order to burnish the credentials and 
skills of some young blood well on his way to becoming another rummy for the 
profit of handlers, agents, managers.

Lenin's pamphlet is indeed a superficial analysis of what occurred in the 
transition from the formal to the real domination of capital, but if we 
grant that it is that, then it behooves the Leninists to cease and desist 
from raising  it up like Moses raising up the tablets from god on his way 
back to the idol worshippers.

One of the elements of this theory of imperialism according to Lenin is 
that more and more the advanced countries are rentier capitalists, living 
off the debt service imposed upon the less advanced countries.  Well let's 
look at that.  Let's just take something relatively unimportant to the 
finance capital/imperialism theory like. like US banks.   So where do US 
banks have their greatest exposure?  To the debt and debt service of the 
less-developed countries?  Not hardly.  That exposure is to the European 
Union.

Exposure of the 5 largest US banks-- JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citibank, 
Goldman, Morgan Stanley to French and German debt instruments alone equals 
25% of their tier 1 capital; for the EU as a whole the exposure is 81% of 
tier 1 capital.  So exactly how dependent is finance capital on the revenue 
streams from the less developed countries?  Doesn't mean the bourgeoisie 
don't immiserate, impoverish, destroy any and every manifestation of 
progress,  social development that does manage to emerge in these 
countries-- but the bourgeoisie are doing exactly the same thing at home, 
except at home it looks different-- it involves penetrating every aspect of 
social reproduction with debt in order to decompose the standards of 
living into a revenue stream for finance, insurance and real estate.

Greg hits on a critical point-- you can't get it both ways-- you can't be 
talking about superprofits being distributed to the working class when the 
rates of profits are declining-- particularly when that decline has 
propelled the bourgeoisie into all sorts of attacks on the home working 
class..  Actually you can get it both ways, but only in the neck.



- Original Message - 
From: Louis Proyect l...@panix.com

It seems once again that Lenin's pamphlet, written mostly to explain the
origins of WWI, is being used as a punching bag.

In my view, there is nobody more committed to Marx's method than
Henryk Grossman who wrote the following:

In effect price formation on the world market is governed by the same
principles that apply under a conceptually isolated capitalism. The
latter anyway is merely a theoretical model; the world market, as a
unity of specific national economies, is something real and concrete.
Today the prices of the most important raw materials and final products
are determined internationally, in the world market. We are no longer
confronted by a national level of prices but a level determined on the
world market. In a conceptually isolated capitalism entrepreneurs with
an above average technology make a surplus profit (a rate of profit
above the average) when they sell their commodities at socially average
prices. Likewise on the world market, the technologically advanced
countries *make a surplus profit at the cost of the technologically less
developed ones*.



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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Shane Mage

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==



On May 16, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:

 In my view, there is nobody more committed to Marx's method than
 Henryk Grossman who wrote the following:

 In effect price formation on the world market is governed by the same
 principles that apply under a conceptually isolated capitalism. The
 latter anyway is merely a theoretical model; the world market, as a
 unity of specific national economies, is something real and concrete.
 Today the prices of the most important raw materials and final  
 products
 are determined internationally, in the world market. We are no longer
 confronted by a national level of prices but a level determined on the
 world market. In a conceptually isolated capitalism entrepreneurs with
 an above average technology make a surplus profit (a rate of profit
 above the average) when they sell their commodities at socially  
 average
 prices. Likewise on the world market, the technologically advanced
 countries *make a surplus profit at the cost of the technologically  
 less
 developed ones*.

In a global, as in a partial, conceptually isolated capitalism it is  
not *countries* but *innovating capitals* that gain surplus profit-- 
as an above-average share of the total surplus value produced in their  
respective industries.  The surplus is necessarily eliminated over  
time as the innovative techniques are adopted by competitors.   
Intellectual property rights slow the process of equalization,  
transforming surplus profits into temporary monopoly rents, but never  
for very long.
Surplus-profit supplying innovations, like computer chips, are quickly  
transformed into commodities that over time provide, on the average,  
only average profits.  Imperialism is only mercantilism writ large.





Shane Mage


  This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
  always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
  kindling in measures and going out in measures.
 
  Herakleitos of Ephesos





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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Shane Mage wrote:
 Surplus-profit supplying innovations, like computer chips, are quickly  
 transformed into commodities that over time provide, on the average,  
 only average profits. 

In the long run, we are all dead.

JM Keynes


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


S. Artesian wrote:
 Grossman's conceptual isolation does not exactly translate into an advanced 
 COUNTRY as an entire COUNTRY making a surplus profit at the cost of a less 
 advanced COUNTRY is a conceptual reification.  Profits don't accrue to 
 countries, are not extracted from countries, but from the social 
 organization of labor, from classes and to classes.
 

Henryk Grossman:

The conflict of interests remains the basic aspect in the sense that 
the whole function of world monopolies lies in the national enrichment 
of some economies at the cost of others.

full: http://www.marxists.org/archive/grossman/1929/breakdown/ch03.htm


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Joaquín Bustelo

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 5/16/2010 10:43 AM, Louis Proyect quoted:
 on the world market, the technologically advanced
 countries *make a surplus profit at the cost of the technologically less
 developed ones*.

I would add that what Louis quotes is orthodox Marxist economics of the 
purest water. See:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch14.htm

Capitals invested in foreign trade can yield a higher rate of profit, 
because, in the first place, there is competition with commodities 
produced in other countries with inferior production facilities, so that 
the more advanced country sells its goods above their value even though 
cheaper than the competing countries The favoured country recovers 
more labour in exchange for less labour...



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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Yes, I know, I've read Grossman and I like Grossman, as I've said.  I don't 
agree with that, as I've said.  The bourgeoisie are always beggaring their 
neighbors, and each other, advanced, less advanced, backward, etc.

You can find 10 more quotes from Grossman and I won't agree with any of 
those on this issue.

There are not now, nor have there ever been world monopolies.  The 
monopolies that do exist, exist only in the class organization, i.e. the 
class of capitalists monopolize as a class the means of production as 
private property in order to produce and reproduce the exchange of the means 
of production with wage-labor.  This is the valorisation process of capital.

 Regarding monopolies and their existence and funtioning in the US, I 
strongly recommend  ]The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 
1895-1904[ by Naomi R. Lamoreaux [what a great name, no?]

If we a bit deeper into the historical origins of the less developed 
nations, you find that the very creation of the less developed nation itself 
is a product of imperialism, as the landowners, and nascent bourgeoisie in, 
for examples, the decomposing vice-royalties of Spain in the Americas raise 
the banner of a nation against the Spanish monarchist-mercantilist alliance, 
after initially rallying to that alliance after Napoleon's invasion.  In 
Brazil, it's even more clear, as Brazil becomes the empire for the 
Portuguese monarchy, saved from Napoleon, of course, by the British navy. 
Of course.

In actual modern development, we can look at the penetration by the advance 
countries into the production of resources in the less advanced countries 
and see perhaps more clearly where the theories of imperialism  miss the 
boat.  Look at the US ownership and control of the mines in Mexico.  When 
the miners of Cananea went on strike in 1906, their grievances included 
opposition to the abuse by US foremen, the dual wage scale that paid US 
workers double [at least double] the wages of Mexican workers. and the 8 
hour workday.  The miners had been in communication with organizers of the 
US Western Federation of Miners, and of course the Partido Liberal Mexicano.

Certainly sections of the landowners and nascent bourgeoisie in Mexico 
looked covetously upon these mines and employed the ideology of nationalism, 
supporting the strikers,  to advance their own interests-- even Madero, 
especially Madero, adopted such a stance.  Didn't change the fact that 
Madero wasn't being exploited, the landowners weren't being exploited, the 
bourgeoisie weren't being exploited; only the labor of the Mexican workers 
was being exploited.  Didn't stop Magon of the PLM from identifying Madero 
as a traitor to the cause of freedom, which characterization Madero's 
presidency absolutely confirmed.

Mexico wasn't being denied 'its' wealth,  since the wealth of the mines 
only existed in its production, as an exchange value, as the product of 
wage-labor.  The exploitation of Mexico by the US was then, and is now, 
the mask obscuring the real class relations that reproduce exploitation.

Doesn't mean the US workers in Mexico weren't privileged.  Absolutely were. 
As a matter of fact, around the same time, US personnel employed on Mexican 
railroads went on strike in an attempt to pre-empt the training of Mexican 
workers as train dispatchers, and... the use of the Spanish language in the 
transmission of train orders, bulletin orders, and other instructions.   But 
that again only shows that the privilege of the US workers was based upon, 
and in resistance to not Mexico but Mexican wage-workers.


- Original Message - 
From: Louis Proyect l...@panix.com

 Henryk Grossman:

 The conflict of interests remains the basic aspect in the sense that
 the whole function of world monopolies lies in the national enrichment
 of some economies at the cost of others.



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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


And again, this is not unique to foreign trade, but happens throughout the 
entire spectrum of capital's exchanges.  It is, once again, the variance 
between the cost of production, and production prices.

- 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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Joaquín Bustelo

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 5/16/2010 12:31 PM, S. Artesian wrote:
 There are not now, nor have there ever been world monopolies.

Huh? What do you call Microsoft Windows, a highly competitive product?

How did Microsoft generate so much profit with (relatively) modest 
amounts of labor?

Similarly, what are we to make of Intel's domination of the i386 breed 
of processors, including now the 64-bit extension of the platform 
actually developed by AMD?

Joaquín




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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


S. Artesian wrote:
 If we a bit deeper into the historical origins of the less developed 
 nations, you find that the very creation of the less developed nation itself 
 is a product of imperialism, as the landowners, and nascent bourgeoisie in, 
 for examples, the decomposing vice-royalties of Spain in the Americas raise 
 the banner of a nation against the Spanish monarchist-mercantilist alliance, 
 after initially rallying to that alliance after Napoleon's invasion.  In 
 Brazil, it's even more clear, as Brazil becomes the empire for the 
 Portuguese monarchy, saved from Napoleon, of course, by the British navy. 
 Of course.

Brazil as empire? I don't think I agree with this.

Anyhow, I am not going to say any more on this for the time being since 
I plan to be writing a much longer post on Kemal, the USSR and 
reactionary anti-imperialism as a response to Loren Goldner's article 
that will have some bearing on all this.


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I call them capitalist enterprises of incredible concentration and 
centralization; I call them dominant players in the markets.  They do not 
monopolize the markets, or at least cannot maintain such monopolies without 
engendering competition which both Microsoft and Intel have done;  nor do 
their dominant positions support the monopoly capitalist theories that 
somehow these monopolies are exempt from, or abrogate the laws of value 
and  the conflicts and contradictions of the valorisation process of capital 
as capital.

Intel's market share is about 50% of microprocessor sales.  And its, and the 
semiconductor industry as whole, extremely high organic composition of 
capital has not spared it from overproduction, collapsing prices, the 
asymptotic convergence of cost price, and production prices, the tendency of 
the rate of profit to fall, etc.

The enduring strength of Intel is not in its manipulation of markets, its 
supremacy over the law of value, but in its continuous reproduction of a 
reduced cost of production, which gives it the leverage to compete 
unfairly, bribe, bully, etc. its customers to the detriment of competitors.

JB's views, IMO, can lead to a liberal narrative where the problem with 
capitalism is in abuse, in unfair advantage... etc., not in its organization 
of capital, as the aggrandizement of wage-labor-- hence the view that 
advanced countries are robbing less advanced countries.

- 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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Joaquín Bustelo

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 5/16/2010 12:59 PM, S. Artesian wrote:
 Intel's market share is about 50% of microprocessor sales.  And its, and the
 semiconductor industry as whole, extremely high organic composition of
 capital has not spared it from overproduction, collapsing prices, the
 asymptotic convergence of cost price, and production prices, the tendency of
 the rate of profit to fall, etc.

Have you looked at the quarterly results and market capitalization of 
these companies over time? OK, call it incredible concentration and 
dominant players, it amounts to the same thing. A rose by any other 
name...

As for microprocessor sales in general, I don't know where those figures 
come from. But in the x86 market, here are the most recent numbers I've 
found.

IDC reports x86 processor demand grew by record levels in Q4 2009, as 
shipments jumped by 31.1 percent sequentially. During the same quarter, 
AMD managed to recover some of its lost share. Intel's market share was 
80.5 percent, while AMD managed to grab 19.4 percent

AMD's mobile processor market share also jumped from 10.2 to 12.7 
percent during 2009. Although AMD introduced several new mobile 
processors, the effort was nowhere near to come close to Intel

http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/17406/1/

Elsewhere I saw that Intel's gross margin for the most recent quarter 
was 65 percent, compared to AMD's 47%. Of course, technically Intel 
doesn't have a monopoly in the x86 processor market, it is only the 
senior partner in a duopoly.

Joaquín


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


You are correct for shares of the 86 market; my numbers were for all 
microprocessors sales from the Semiconductor Industry Association.  It might 
have read the numbers incorrectly, so I'll go back and check.  In the 
meantime, let's use the numbers from fudzilla [christ, who thinks up these 
names]. In any case, call it dominant, call it super dominant, you can call 
it a monopoly if you like, but a rose by all it's names is still a 
capitalist rose, which generates its expansion through the exploitation of 
wage-labor, and realizes the advantages it has in that exploitation in the 
divergence between cost price and the price of production.

Nothing in that divergence has anything to do with Intel exploiting nations, 
countries, colonies, etc.  Labor costs in advanced semiconductor fabrication 
amount to, according to the WSJ, about 1% of costs. The point is nothing in 
the generation of a monopoly abrogates the basis for valorisation of 
capital.

The notions of parasitism, unequal exchange, rentier capitalism, bribery of 
the working class, based on the super-exploitation of countries as countries 
really doesn't hold up.  The advanced countries do not dedicate the 
majority, or even a substantive minority, of their investment in less 
advanced countries, but rather, in other advanced countries. Profit 
contributions follow that same pattern.

In response to Louis:  Brazil literally called itself  empire, when the 
Portuguese monarchy was transported there by the Brits.  That was what I was 
referring to.


Loren and I are both looking forward to the article on Kemal and the USSR, 
and the aid given to the nationalists at the expense of the communists.

Anyway, I'll be out of the country awhile so I'll try to follow the 
discussion, but probably won't be able to provide my usual sparkling 
contributions.

Nice to read and hear JB sounding like is usual self.  Hope he feels like 
his usual self.


- 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

[Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Leonardo Kosloff

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==

Speaking of electronics and the law of value, here is an article by Guido
Starosta, a colleague of Juan Iñigo Carrera, on the Global Value Chain (GVC)
approach, a sort of Wallersteinian theory that purportedly addresses the
problems of competition in global chains of electronics production:
The Changing Dynamics of Value production and ‘Capture’ in theElectronics
Global Value Chain: A Marxian Perspective
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/PEI/publications/wp/documents/Starosta01-09.pdf
Let me quote what the aim of the article is, which is elaborated further on by
developing how Marxtreated capitals of different sizes, and how the simpler
form of the law of value is actually unfoldedin what mistakenly, as I see it,
became the monopoly capital era:
Two major weaknesses can be observed in this account (Starosta, 2008b). First,
whilst thereis no doubt that some firms have more power than others to
‘capture’ value (and hence have ahigher rate of profit) this is simply an
empirical fact that requires explanation. Surely, the GVCapproach attempts to
ground the differentiation of ‘value-capturing’ capacities in the
exclusivepossession of ‘scarce assets’ by lead firms. But this analytically
displaces the phenomenon to beexplained one step further. For why is it that
certain capitals systematically have a greater potentialto appropriate scarce
assets whilst others have no access to those means of capitalist
competition?Perhaps one could argue that lead firms possess the magnitude of
capital or access to financialresources necessary to generate their own
barriers to entry, whilst lesser chain members do not(Rutherford and Holmes,
2008). But this will not do the trick either. It simply begs the question ofwhy
in certain branches of the division of social labour capitals of a particularly
restrictedmagnitude systematically prevail despite the general tendency for the
concentration andcentralisation of capital characterising capitalist
production. In a nutshell, one of the centralproblems with the GVC’s ‘theory of
value capture’ is that it actually assumes what needs to beexplained, i.e. the
systematic differentiation of capitals of stratified valorisation capacities.
Second, the GVC approach fails to grasp the relations among individual capitals
beyond
their immediate appearances. It is thereby unable to uncover the content of the
phenomenon under
investigation behind its outward manifestations and actually inverts the latter
into the very cause of
the phenomenon itself. Thus, it sees the constitution of commodity chains as
essentially governed
by direct social relations of command (or maybe co-operation). This overlooks
the essentially
indirect nature of the general social relation that regulates capitalist
society, namely, the generalised
production and exchange of commodities. A proper explanation of the social
constitution of GVC
should therefore show why the indirect establishment of the general unity of
the division of labour
through the commodity-form becomes eventually mediated by relatively enduring
direct social
relations on particular nodes of the overall process of social production.
Building on the Marxian
law of value, the following section offers such an alternative account of the
content and form of
GVC.
I will come back to this in a couple days (?) when I have more time. But thanks
for keeping the discussion respectful, and by the way Joaquin, thanks for the
link to the Silvio Rodriguez' blog.
_
Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
inbox.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2

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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Brazil referred to itself this way not just metaphorically because of its
immense size but also because from 1822-1889 it was presided over by a
constitutional monarch denominated as an Emperor which Brazil had two of:
Dom Pedro I and Dom Pedro II

Lou:

 Brazil as empire? I don't think I agree with this.


 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
 Set your options at:
 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Tom Cod wrote:
 Brazil referred to itself this way not just metaphorically because of its
 immense size but also because from 1822-1889 it was presided over by a
 constitutional monarch denominated as an Emperor which Brazil had two of:
 Dom Pedro I and Dom Pedro II

And what countries were part of its empire? Just because it called 
itself an empire and the head of state was an emperor, this does not 
make it an imperial power. France, Holland, Britain and the USA to a 
lesser degree were imperial powers, not Brazil.


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Michael Perelman

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


We had Emperor Norton in San Francisco.
-- 
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


I think that's right, leaving aside the issue of the indigenous peoples.
 The far western US region, excluding the Pacific Coast, (the cowboy west)
often refers to itself in this same manner as Inland Empire etc.; the
difference there being it actually is an internal part of what we would
recognize as an imperialist power.  I think the reference made was to
Brazil's historical name during that period, not to a marxist designation,
but your point is well taken nonetheless.

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Louis Proyect l...@panix.com wrote:


 And what countries were part of its empire? Just because it called
 itself an empire and the head of state was an emperor, this does not
 make it an imperial power. France, Holland, Britain and the USA to a
 lesser degree were imperial powers, not Brazil.



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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Einde O'Callaghan

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 16.05.10 21:58, Louis Proyect wrote:
 ==
 Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
 ==


 Tom Cod wrote:
 Brazil referred to itself this way not just metaphorically because of its
 immense size but also because from 1822-1889 it was presided over by a
 constitutional monarch denominated as an Emperor which Brazil had two of:
 Dom Pedro I and Dom Pedro II

 And what countries were part of its empire? Just because it called
 itself an empire and the head of state was an emperor, this does not
 make it an imperial power. France, Holland, Britain and the USA to a
 lesser degree were imperial powers, not Brazil.

Well there was the Holy Roman Empire, which was all in the German 
speaking parts of Europe - and for most of its existence it didn't have 
a particularly strong central power. Admittedly for a while in the Mddle 
Ages it included parts of what is now Italy. But in general historically 
an empire was a state whose head of state had the title emperor - it 
didn't necessarily have any external colonies.

Einde O'Callaghan


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
 Well there was the Holy Roman Empire, which was all in the German 
 speaking parts of Europe - and for most of its existence it didn't have 
 a particularly strong central power. Admittedly for a while in the Mddle 
 Ages it included parts of what is now Italy. But in general historically 
 an empire was a state whose head of state had the title emperor - it 
 didn't necessarily have any external colonies.

The real distinction is between precapitalist and capitalist empires, 
but even within the category precapitalist there is nothing that Brazil 
and the Ottoman Empire had in common. The Ottomans extracted tribute 
across a 5000 mile spread and nearly penetrated into Western Europe.


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Einde O'Callaghan

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


On 16.05.10 22:30, Louis Proyect wrote:
 ==
 Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
 ==


 Einde O'Callaghan wrote:
 Well there was the Holy Roman Empire, which was all in the German
 speaking parts of Europe - and for most of its existence it didn't have
 a particularly strong central power. Admittedly for a while in the Mddle
 Ages it included parts of what is now Italy. But in general historically
 an empire was a state whose head of state had the title emperor - it
 didn't necessarily have any external colonies.

 The real distinction is between precapitalist and capitalist empires,
 but even within the category precapitalist there is nothing that Brazil
 and the Ottoman Empire had in common. The Ottomans extracted tribute
 across a 5000 mile spread and nearly penetrated into Western Europe.

That is of course one of the problems with the term imperialism since it 
means both pertaining to an empire (no matter what the mode of 
production - this being the everyday mening of the word) and a stage of 
capitalist development which in its initial phases was connected with 
territorial domination (as in the everyday sense of the word) but which 
continued to develop after the ending of the direct territorial 
occupation (at least in most cases) - this being the meaning in Marxist 
discourse (and for certain bourgeois economists too - e.g. Hobson).

Einde O'Callaghan


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

2010-05-16 Thread Nestor Gorojovsky

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


  don´t blame anyone but utter charlatans for speaking of this 
Imperial trait of Brazil from distant lands.

I guess the Brazilian subscribers to the list haven´t answered yet (or 
maybe they won´t at all) because they are too busy ROTFAL.

Tom Cod escribió:
 ==
 Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
 ==
 
 
 Brazil referred to itself this way not just metaphorically because of its
 immense size but also because from 1822-1889 it was presided over by a
 constitutional monarch denominated as an Emperor which Brazil had two of:
 Dom Pedro I and Dom Pedro II
 
 Lou:
 
 Brazil as empire? I don't think I agree with this.


 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
 Set your options at:
 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com

 
 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
 Set your options at: 
 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/nmgoro%40gmail.com
 



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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right

==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==


why is that type of personal attack appropriate to this discussion? ignorant
maybe, but charlatan?

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nestor Gorojovsky nmg...@gmail.com wrote:


   don´t blame anyone but utter charlatans for speaking of this
 Imperial trait of Brazil from distant lands.

 I guess the Brazilian subscribers to the list haven´t answered yet (or
 maybe they won´t at all) because they are too busy ROTFAL.




 
 Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
 Set your options at:
 http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/tomcod3%40gmail.com


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

Re: [Marxism] Lenin's Imperialism, was: Question on the Far Right