M-TH: Forwarded mail....
_ "She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain." (1873) -- Louisa May Alcott _ -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:08:33 -0400 (EDT) From: George Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The situation in Sierra Leone is virtually anarchic. The enduring acute instability in Sierra Leone is a legacy of imperialist colonisation by the West together with the inherently contradictory and limited character of imperialism's post-colonial relationship to Africa --particularly in the form of the US. The situation is so adverse that US imperialism and its subalterns are currently unable to do anything to stabilise the situation. There current demarche is farcical in the light of the fact that any opportunity they had to stabilise the situation could only have existed prior to this present macabre turn of events. Had imperialism a serious policy for introducing stability to Sierra Leone they would have been already engaged in implementing such a policy which, if effective, would have reflected itself in the avoidance of the presently ghastly development. Imperialism's present feeble demarche in Sierra Leone is a ghastly reflection of the political bankruptcy of imperialism's African foreign policy and the severe limitations of imperialism as a regulating system. The inherent contradictions and limitations of imperialism are manifesting themselves in a macabre and ghastly fashion in Sierra Leone. The West is reduced to an intervention that is nothing more than a feeble cover for its failure and inability to manage the situation in Sierra Leone. Its military presence in Sierra Leone is lacking in any strategic focus and constitutes a virtual panic reaction to a situation that has been getting out of hand for some time now. Imperialism uses the cover of the UN as a means to obscure any failure of the demarche by US imperialism and its imperialist subalterns to seriously stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone. The pathetic situation is that there exists no revolutionary force capable of filling the virtual political vacuum there. The inherent inability of imperialist capital and what is called globalisation to produce even limited economic development and the corresponding social and political stability is the immediate source of the problem. Warm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community by simply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
No Subject
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 6499
Subject: SV: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:01:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists.econ.utah.edu id VAA16586
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 6499
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Originating-IP: 12.78.148.242
Subject: SV: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Nice post Jim. But you should have said that Chris Buford's position is basically the
mirrored reflection of George's in a sense. Whereas George sees Capitalism/imperialism
in the negative, Chris always relies on its positive aspects which usually are hardly
positive at all. Both I claim will draw the wrong programatic and tactical conclusions.
I note that this kind of debate comes up always around a military intervention, in
this case Sierra Leone. So in this case communists should call for all NATO troops
out. There is nothing positive about a NATO intervention in Sierra Leone. And here I
disagree with George´s over simplified view of the situation. In fact what is
happening in Africa is directly connected to the destruction of the former Soviet
Union and this is historical dialectical materialism. And in fact I think that the
other side of the coin is hardly that U.S. imperialism is one of the actors on the
arena but a number of imperialist countries are actors.
What is different this time around is that it is not only the strategic oil states,
but the entire continent, which is up for grabs..
However, thinking about your ending to George where you give proof of your position by
saying..
One such, for example, is the
numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that is
reactionary.
What´s your take on events in Zimbabwe?
And another question to all...Is are we dealing with imperialism here or colonialism?
Interestingly enough is there are "trotskyists" claiming that we are seeing a period
of bourgeois revolutions taking place in Africa! Quite remarkable in itself..
Anyhow what is going on in Africa certainly reflects in a sense that inter imperialist
rivalry is increasing on some very interesting levels. One being the former SU and its
own wannabe intentions which with its nuclear arsenal is closed for any serious
outside intervention outside of a new world war. China opening up creates the same
scenario. So that leaves Africa open for a free for all by all.
Interestingly enough Africa because of its colonization history causes more problems
for core imperialist countries then let's say the wannabe Russia who needs to
consolidate its own position.
Cheers
Bob Malecki
- Original Message -
From: Jim heartfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
I'm grateful for George Pennefather's warm regards, as the rest of his
post is decidedly chilly, but comradely criticism is always welcome.
George chides me for my undialectical approach in insisting that there
are positive developments within capitalism, though the negative
predominate.
Of course, I should have expected that insisting on a balanced, which is
to say dialectical, analysis would find me attacked on both sides: Chris
Burford says that I am un-Marxist because I fail to find the positive
elements in the military intervention in Sierra Leone; George says I am
undialectical because I insist that - even though they are outweighed by
the destructive features, there are positive features in capitalism.
But it is George that is undialectical. He says that advances in
technology might appear to be good, but are in there essence conditions
of the perpetuation of imperialism.
Here George is abusing the appearance-essence category by making it into
a dogmatic insistence on the correctness of his analysis even where it
is contradicted by appearance. No matter what the evidence is, he is
saying, the essence is reactionary, so you do not have to pay attention
to any facts that might contradict that essence.
But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the
form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has
been technological progress because there *has been* technological
progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away.
Undialectically, George puts the contradiction *between* appearance and
essence ('it looks one way, but it's really another'). This is
ultimately apologetic, because it suggests a uniform essence without
contradictions.
The dialectical approach would posit the contradiction *within* the
essence
M-TH: Re: List problems
Me, too, David. Can't do anything about it right now, though. If it's still playing up in the morning (antipodean time), we'll get on to it, then. 'Night all, Rob. -- From: David Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M-TH: List problems Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:42:50 +0100 (BST) Hi, I'm seeing lots of duplicate messages from the marxism-thaxis list with the headers included in the body of the message, so the subject is blank for example. It might a problem at my end but I'm seeing it on both of my emails addresses that are subscribed. On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jim heartfield wrote: [...] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: List problems
David, So am I. Though they all appear to be on the same subject, but that might just be a coincidence. But out of interest why are you subscribed twice? To increase the number of subscribers? John Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:42:50 +0100 (BST) From: David Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: M-TH: List problems Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I'm seeing lots of duplicate messages from the marxism-thaxis list with the headers included in the body of the message, so the subject is blank for example. It might a problem at my end but I'm seeing it on both of my emails addresses that are subscribed. On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jim heartfield wrote: [...] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
In message 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer, George Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes George Pennefather: Facts always merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of the essence of imperialism. Give it up George, you've been rumbled. You were trotting out a vulgar conception of dialectics to shore up your own dogmatism. Witness this monstrosity: The numerical growth of the working class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character --essentially it supports American imperialism. You cannot be serious. You are really saying that the American working class is *essentially* pro-imperialist! Talk about being ensnared in surface appearances. You seem indifferent to the spectacular assault on the living standards of the working class in the nineties. Presumably these greedy yanks have got it coming. The issue is not so much a matter as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. More juggling to avoid the issue. Marx makes the simple point that capitalism creates its own grave-diggers. The growth of the working class internationally is of course a very positive feature, for all humanity. Today it is the political character of the working class that is significant and not as some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. As if these two were mutually exclusive factors! Sheer sophistry. The objective conditions for communist revolution have been present for some time now --whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant. No, of course not, nothing new is remotely significant to the dogmatist. All the appropriate material conditions insists George were in place since 1848. No need then to take an interest in what is new. No insight into the international significance of the creation of an industrial working class in East Asia. None of that is of any interest to the Euro- centric socialist. Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better the politics. This entirely a leap of your own. Anyway even Jim's abstract claim that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of dialectics. I had to laugh when I read this. Of course I referred to the commonly know fact that the industrial working class has grown in size, but George the dogmatist imagines that this is a question that can be meditated upon philosophically. If he really want to 'question' he might have looked at the facts before 'dialectically' divining the answer out of his own dogmatic beliefs. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. Who? Who would say it has been shrinking? Only someone who did not know, and was happy to substitute prejudice for fact. In the developing countries the numerical growth of the industrial working class was greater than in any other part of the world in the thirty years from 1960 to 1990. It grew from 88 million to 192 million. In the Newly Industrialising Countries (the so-called Tiger economies of SE Asia and some of Latin America) the industrial working class increased from 12 million to 33 million. In the advanced capitalist countries the industrial working class grew from 159 million to 189 million. The making of abstract statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the debate. George, the only thing that was abstract about my comment was the assumption on my part that, as someone who purports to an interest in these matters, you might have shown some passing familiarity with the facts. But I guess you must be taught your ABC about the empirical conditions as you must about dialectics. By all means reply when you have an informed contribution to make. -- Jim heartfield --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Forwarded mail....
_ "She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain." (1873) -- Louisa May Alcott _ -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:09:09 -0400 (EDT) From: George Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jim Heartfield: Here George is abusing the appearance-essence category by making it into a dogmatic insistence on the correctness of his analysis even where it is contradicted by appearance. No matter what the evidence is, he is saying, the essence is reactionary, so you do not have to pay attention to any facts that might contradict that essence. George Pennefather: Facts always merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of the essence of imperialism. Jim: But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has been technological progress because there *has been* technological progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away. George: Under imperialism form contradicts content. The forms of production, capitalist social relations of production, retard the development of the forces of production which is why capitalist forms lead to the development of technology in the form of nuclear weapons etc. --a technology that is not "progressive". Jim: The dialectical approach would posit the contradiction *within* the essence itself. In other words, capitalism combines destructive and creative elements. It develops the forces of production, but on a narrow and exploitative basis. George: I never denied that the essence of contemporary capitalism is not contradictory. Of course it is which is why there necessarily obtains a contradictory relationship between essence and appearance under imperialist capitalism. Jim: The definition of imperialism is not one in which no progress is possible, as Lenin makes abundantly clear, but rather one in which the destructive features predominate over the progressive, making imperialism as a totality negative, but not denying that there can be progressive developments within it. One such, for example, is the numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that is reactionary. George: Jim's artificial construction of a false dichotomy between the alleged positive and negative features of imperialism constitutes an ideological illusion which opens a window for the entry of reformist politics. It creates ideological justification for promoting putative good side of capitalism as opposed to the putative side. If capitalism has a progressive character and even essence then there is no necessary reason why the quantitative or mathematical relation between the good and bad sides of imperialism cannot be reconfigured --a reformist notion. The numerical growth of the working class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character --essentially it supports American imperialism. The issue is not so much a matter as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. Today it is the political character of the working class that is significant and not as some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. The objective conditions for communist revolution have been present for some time now --whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant. Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better the politics. Anyway even Jim's abstract claim that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of dialectics. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. The making of abstract statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the debate. Warm regards George Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site at http://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community by simply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: List problems
On Mon, 15 May 2000, J.WALKER wrote: But out of interest why are you subscribed twice? To increase the number of subscribers? Its more convenient to have one email address for use at home and one for use at university. --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
No Subject
Jim Heartfield: Here George is abusing the appearance-essence category by making it into a dogmatic insistence on the correctness of his analysis even where it is contradicted by appearance. No matter what the evidence is, he is saying, the essence is reactionary, so you do not have to pay attention to any facts that might contradict that essence. George Pennefather: Facts always merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of the essence of imperialism.Jim: But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has been technological progress because there *has been* technological progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away. George: Under imperialism form contradicts content. The forms of production, capitalist social relations of production, retard the development of the forces of production which is why capitalist forms lead to the development of technology in the form of nuclear weapons etc. --a technology that is not "progressive".Jim: The dialectical approach would posit the contradiction *within* the essence itself. In other words, capitalism combines destructive and creative elements. It develops the forces of production, but on a narrow and exploitative basis. George: I never denied that the essence of contemporary capitalism is not contradictory. Of course it is which is why there necessarily obtains a contradictory relationship between essence and appearance under imperialist capitalism.Jim: The definition of imperialism is not one in which no progress is possible, as Lenin makes abundantly clear, but rather one in which the destructive features predominate over the progressive, making imperialism as a totality negative, but not denying that there can be progressive developments within it. One such, for example, is the numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that isreactionary. George: Jim's artificial construction of a false dichotomy between the alleged positive and negative features of imperialism constitutes an ideological illusion which opens a window for the entry of reformist politics. It creates ideological justification for promoting putativegood side of capitalism as opposed to the putative side. If capitalism has a progressive character and even essence thenthere is no necessary reason why the quantitative or mathematical relation between the good and bad sides of imperialism cannot be reconfigured --a reformist notion. The numerical growth of the working class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character --essentially it supports American imperialism. The issue is not so much a matter as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. Today it is the political character of the working class that is significant and not as some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. The objective conditions forcommunist revolution have been present for some time now --whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant. Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better the politics. Anyway even Jim's abstract claim that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of dialectics. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. The making of abstract statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the debate. Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No Subject
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 5307 Subject: unknown Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Originating-IP: 12.78.148.242 Subject: Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 4269 Subject: Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 005301bfbda0$5895e9e0$baff869f@oemcomputer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer In-Reply-To: 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 74W2kiRljMZBzdLwRmnMvYWx62 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 4269 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Originating-IP: 12.78.148.242 Subject: Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone In message 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer, George Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes George Pennefather: Facts always merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of the essence of imperialism. Give it up George, you've been rumbled. You were trotting out a vulgar conception of dialectics to shore up your own dogmatism. Witness this monstrosity: The numerical growth of the working class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character --essentially it supports American imperialism. You cannot be serious. You are really saying that the American working class is *essentially* pro-imperialist! Talk about being ensnared in surface appearances. You seem indifferent to the spectacular assault on the living standards of the working class in the nineties. Presumably these greedy yanks have got it coming. The issue is not so much a matter as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. More juggling to avoid the issue. Marx makes the simple point that capitalism creates its own grave-diggers. The growth of the working class internationally is of course a very positive feature, for all humanity. Today it is the political character of the working class that is significant and not as some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. As if these two were mutually exclusive factors! Sheer sophistry. The objective conditions for communist revolution have been present for some time now --whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant. No, of course not, nothing new is remotely significant to the dogmatist. All the appropriate material conditions insists George were in place since 1848. No need then to take an interest in what is new. No insight into the international significance of the creation of an industrial working class in East Asia. None of that is of any interest to the Euro- centric socialist. Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better the politics. This entirely a leap of your own. Anyway even Jim's abstract claim that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of dialectics. I had to laugh when I read this. Of course I referred to the commonly know fact that the industrial working class has grown in size, but George the dogmatist imagines that this is a question that can be meditated upon philosophically. If he really want to 'question' he might have looked at the facts before 'dialectically' divining the answer out of his own dogmatic beliefs. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. Who? Who would say it has been shrinking? Only someone who did not know, and was happy to substitute prejudice for fact. In the developing countries the numerical growth of the industrial working class was greater than in any other part of the world in the thirty years from 1960 to 1990. It grew from 88 million to 192 million. In the Newly Industrialising Countries (the so-called Tiger economies of SE Asia and some of Latin America) the industrial working class increased from 12 million to 33 million. In the advanced capitalist countries the industrial working class grew from 159 million to 189 million. The making of abstract statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the debate. George, the only thing that was abstract about my comment was the assumption on my part that, as someone who purports to an interest in these matters, you might have shown some passing familiarity with the facts. But I guess you must be taught your ABC about the empirical conditions as you must about
No Subject
The situation in Sierra Leone is virtually anarchic. The enduring acute instability in Sierra Leone is a legacy of imperialist colonisation by the West together with the inherently contradictory and limited character of imperialism's post-colonial relationship to Africa --particularly in the form of the US. The situation is so adverse that US imperialism and its subalterns are currently unable to do anything to stabilise the situation. There current demarche is farcical in the light of the fact that any opportunity they had to stabilise the situation could only have existed prior to this present macabre turn of events. Had imperialism a serious policy for introducing stability to Sierra Leone they would have been already engaged in implementing such a policy which, if effective, would have reflected itself in the avoidance of the presently ghastly development. Imperialism's present feeble demarche in Sierra Leone is a ghastly reflection of the political bankruptcy of imperialism's African foreign policy and the severe limitations of imperialism as a regulating system. The inherent contradictions and limitations of imperialism are manifesting themselves in a macabre and ghastly fashion in Sierra Leone. The West is reduced to an intervention that is nothing more than a feeble cover for its failure and inability to manage the situation in Sierra Leone. Its military presence in Sierra Leoneis lacking in any strategic focus and constitutes a virtual panic reaction to a situation that has been getting out of hand for some time now. Imperialism uses the cover of the UN as a means to obscure any failure of the demarche by US imperialism and its imperialist subalterns to seriously stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone. The pathetic situation is that there exists no revolutionary force capable of filling the virtual political vacuum there. The inherent inability of imperialist capital and what is called globalisation to produce even limited economic development and the corresponding social and political stability is the immediate source of the problem. Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No Subject
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 7309
Subject: unknown
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Originating-IP: 12.78.148.242
Subject:
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 6499
Subject: SV: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:01:16 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lists.econ.utah.edu id VAA16586
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 6499
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Originating-IP: 12.78.148.242
Subject: SV: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Nice post Jim. But you should have said that Chris Buford's position is basically the
mirrored reflection of George's in a sense. Whereas George sees Capitalism/imperialism
in the negative, Chris always relies on its positive aspects which usually are hardly
positive at all. Both I claim will draw the wrong programatic and tactical conclusions.
I note that this kind of debate comes up always around a military intervention, in
this case Sierra Leone. So in this case communists should call for all NATO troops
out. There is nothing positive about a NATO intervention in Sierra Leone. And here I
disagree with George´s over simplified view of the situation. In fact what is
happening in Africa is directly connected to the destruction of the former Soviet
Union and this is historical dialectical materialism. And in fact I think that the
other side of the coin is hardly that U.S. imperialism is one of the actors on the
arena but a number of imperialist countries are actors.
What is different this time around is that it is not only the strategic oil states,
but the entire continent, which is up for grabs..
However, thinking about your ending to George where you give proof of your position by
saying..
One such, for example, is the
numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that is
reactionary.
What´s your take on events in Zimbabwe?
And another question to all...Is are we dealing with imperialism here or colonialism?
Interestingly enough is there are "trotskyists" claiming that we are seeing a period
of bourgeois revolutions taking place in Africa! Quite remarkable in itself..
Anyhow what is going on in Africa certainly reflects in a sense that inter imperialist
rivalry is increasing on some very interesting levels. One being the former SU and its
own wannabe intentions which with its nuclear arsenal is closed for any serious
outside intervention outside of a new world war. China opening up creates the same
scenario. So that leaves Africa open for a free for all by all.
Interestingly enough Africa because of its colonization history causes more problems
for core imperialist countries then let's say the wannabe Russia who needs to
consolidate its own position.
Cheers
Bob Malecki
- Original Message -
From: Jim heartfield [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
I'm grateful for George Pennefather's warm regards, as the rest of his
post is decidedly chilly, but comradely criticism is always welcome.
George chides me for my undialectical approach in insisting that there
are positive developments within capitalism, though the negative
predominate.
Of course, I should have expected that insisting on a balanced, which is
to say dialectical, analysis would find me attacked on both sides: Chris
Burford says that I am un-Marxist because I fail to find the positive
elements in the military intervention in Sierra Leone; George says I am
undialectical because I insist that - even though they are outweighed by
the destructive features, there are positive features in capitalism.
But it is George that is undialectical. He says that advances in
technology might appear to be good, but are in there essence conditions
of the perpetuation of imperialism.
Here George is abusing the appearance-essence category by making it into
a dogmatic insistence on the correctness of his analysis even where it
is contradicted by appearance. No matter what the evidence is, he is
saying, the essence is reactionary, so you do not have to pay attention
to any facts that might contradict that essence.
But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the
form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has
been technological progress because there *has been* technological
progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away.
Undialectically, George puts the contradiction *between* appearance and
essence ('it looks one way, but it's really another'). This is
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Jim heartfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/13/00 02:26AM In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes "Imperialism is as much our 'mortal' enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism." And by the same token presumably, fascism is progressive compared with democracy?! If progression were merely the passage of time then everything that came later would be superior to what went before. But Lenin's whole point is that imperialism is a reactionary phase in which the advances of the previous period are put into reverse. He calls it the era of 'stagnation and decay', and while he allows that there will be some advances in technology, he maintains that on balance it will be an epoch marked by the reversal of democratic gains, principally consequent on the subordination of small nations to the mature powers - like Sierra Leone. __ CBrown: In the world situation in the period of 1916 and following, imperialism had reactionary and liberal sectors. Fascism was , generally, the dominant influence of the reactionary sectors of imperialism. We do have to update the analysis from 1916 based on many historical developments. But it may still be valid to consider that imperialism has different wings and sectors. Now there are special splits between more-national and more-transnational bourgeoisie. Charles Brown --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
M-TH: Download entire ISO/SWP squabble!
The entire 49 page internal squabble between the American and English Cliffite organizations is now easily downloaded in a zipfile at the homepage of Cockroach! Just click on the link; "The entire ISO/SWP squabble! " and download it and read the entire sordid history in your browser... Warm RegardsBob Malecki--- Check Out My HomePage where you can, Read or download the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!and "Radiotime"-the Book! Now the Official International Communist League Page! Or Get The Latest Issue of COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people. http://home.bip.net/malecki http://www.algonet.se/~malecki Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: Download entire ISO/SWP squabble!
Love to, Bob, only I'll be alphabetising the spicerack for the foreseeable future ... Yours-in-search-of-a-party-who-reckon-agreeing-on-the-social-ownership-and-contr ol-of-the-means-of-production-is-more-than-enough-reason-to-be-friends, Rob. The entire 49 page internal squabble between the American and English Cliffite organizations is now easily downloaded in a zipfile at the homepage of Cockroach! Just click on the link; "The entire ISO/SWP squabble! " and download it and read the entire sordid history in your browser... --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
No Subject
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 4269 Subject: Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone References: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 005301bfbda0$5895e9e0$baff869f@oemcomputer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer In-Reply-To: 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike (32) Version 4.01 74W2kiRljMZBzdLwRmnMvYWx62 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Length: 4269 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Originating-IP: 12.78.148.242 Subject: Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone In message 000201bfbe3d$65ad4540$95fe869f@oemcomputer, George Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes George Pennefather: Facts always merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of the essence of imperialism. Give it up George, you've been rumbled. You were trotting out a vulgar conception of dialectics to shore up your own dogmatism. Witness this monstrosity: The numerical growth of the working class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character --essentially it supports American imperialism. You cannot be serious. You are really saying that the American working class is *essentially* pro-imperialist! Talk about being ensnared in surface appearances. You seem indifferent to the spectacular assault on the living standards of the working class in the nineties. Presumably these greedy yanks have got it coming. The issue is not so much a matter as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. More juggling to avoid the issue. Marx makes the simple point that capitalism creates its own grave-diggers. The growth of the working class internationally is of course a very positive feature, for all humanity. Today it is the political character of the working class that is significant and not as some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. As if these two were mutually exclusive factors! Sheer sophistry. The objective conditions for communist revolution have been present for some time now --whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant. No, of course not, nothing new is remotely significant to the dogmatist. All the appropriate material conditions insists George were in place since 1848. No need then to take an interest in what is new. No insight into the international significance of the creation of an industrial working class in East Asia. None of that is of any interest to the Euro- centric socialist. Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better the politics. This entirely a leap of your own. Anyway even Jim's abstract claim that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of dialectics. I had to laugh when I read this. Of course I referred to the commonly know fact that the industrial working class has grown in size, but George the dogmatist imagines that this is a question that can be meditated upon philosophically. If he really want to 'question' he might have looked at the facts before 'dialectically' divining the answer out of his own dogmatic beliefs. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. Who? Who would say it has been shrinking? Only someone who did not know, and was happy to substitute prejudice for fact. In the developing countries the numerical growth of the industrial working class was greater than in any other part of the world in the thirty years from 1960 to 1990. It grew from 88 million to 192 million. In the Newly Industrialising Countries (the so-called Tiger economies of SE Asia and some of Latin America) the industrial working class increased from 12 million to 33 million. In the advanced capitalist countries the industrial working class grew from 159 million to 189 million. The making of abstract statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the debate. George, the only thing that was abstract about my comment was the assumption on my part that, as someone who purports to an interest in these matters, you might have shown some passing familiarity with the facts. But I guess you must be taught your ABC about the empirical conditions as you must about dialectics. By all means reply when you have an informed contribution to make. -- Jim heartfield --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- --- from list
No Subject
Jim Heartfield: Here George is abusing the appearance-essence category by making it into a dogmatic insistence on the correctness of his analysis even where it is contradicted by appearance. No matter what the evidence is, he is saying, the essence is reactionary, so you do not have to pay attention to any facts that might contradict that essence. George Pennefather: Facts always merits attention. However they must be analysed in the context of the establishment of the specific way in which they constitute a manifestation of the essence of imperialism.Jim: But appearance and essence are never wholly contradictory, form is the form of its content, not of another content. It *appears* that there has been technological progress because there *has been* technological progress, and no dialectical juggling will wish that away. George: Under imperialism form contradicts content. The forms of production, capitalist social relations of production, retard the development of the forces of production which is why capitalist forms lead to the development of technology in the form of nuclear weapons etc. --a technology that is not "progressive".Jim: The dialectical approach would posit the contradiction *within* the essence itself. In other words, capitalism combines destructive and creative elements. It develops the forces of production, but on a narrow and exploitative basis. George: I never denied that the essence of contemporary capitalism is not contradictory. Of course it is which is why there necessarily obtains a contradictory relationship between essence and appearance under imperialist capitalism.Jim: The definition of imperialism is not one in which no progress is possible, as Lenin makes abundantly clear, but rather one in which the destructive features predominate over the progressive, making imperialism as a totality negative, but not denying that there can be progressive developments within it. One such, for example, is the numerical growth of the working class. Let George say that isreactionary. George: Jim's artificial construction of a false dichotomy between the alleged positive and negative features of imperialism constitutes an ideological illusion which opens a window for the entry of reformist politics. It creates ideological justification for promoting putativegood side of capitalism as opposed to the putative side. If capitalism has a progressive character and even essence thenthere is no necessary reason why the quantitative or mathematical relation between the good and bad sides of imperialism cannot be reconfigured --a reformist notion. The numerical growth of the working class is not necessarily progressive. The American working class is among the biggest in the world and yet it is quite reactionary in political character --essentially it supports American imperialism. The issue is not so much a matter as to whether the size of the working class is growing or not --Jim seems to have a penchant these days for mathematical relations. Today it is the political character of the working class that is significant and not as some neo-Pythagoreans may think the size of the working class. The objective conditions forcommunist revolution have been present for some time now --whether the working class is growing in size, then, cannot be significant. Perhaps Jim's view is that the bigger the working class grows the better the politics. Anyway even Jim's abstract claim that the working class is growing is rather questionable --again the absence of dialectics. In much of Africa it is questionable as to whether the working class is growing. Some would say it has been shrinking. The making of abstract statements such as Jim's do not amount to a contribution to the debate. Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
M-TH: List problems
Hi, I'm seeing lots of duplicate messages from the marxism-thaxis list with the headers included in the body of the message, so the subject is blank for example. It might a problem at my end but I'm seeing it on both of my emails addresses that are subscribed. On Mon, 15 May 2000, Jim heartfield wrote: [...] --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
No Subject
The situation in Sierra Leone is virtually anarchic. The enduring acute instability in Sierra Leone is a legacy of imperialist colonisation by the West together with the inherently contradictory and limited character of imperialism's post-colonial relationship to Africa --particularly in the form of the US. The situation is so adverse that US imperialism and its subalterns are currently unable to do anything to stabilise the situation. There current demarche is farcical in the light of the fact that any opportunity they had to stabilise the situation could only have existed prior to this present macabre turn of events. Had imperialism a serious policy for introducing stability to Sierra Leone they would have been already engaged in implementing such a policy which, if effective, would have reflected itself in the avoidance of the presently ghastly development. Imperialism's present feeble demarche in Sierra Leone is a ghastly reflection of the political bankruptcy of imperialism's African foreign policy and the severe limitations of imperialism as a regulating system. The inherent contradictions and limitations of imperialism are manifesting themselves in a macabre and ghastly fashion in Sierra Leone. The West is reduced to an intervention that is nothing more than a feeble cover for its failure and inability to manage the situation in Sierra Leone. Its military presence in Sierra Leoneis lacking in any strategic focus and constitutes a virtual panic reaction to a situation that has been getting out of hand for some time now. Imperialism uses the cover of the UN as a means to obscure any failure of the demarche by US imperialism and its imperialist subalterns to seriously stabilise the situation in Sierra Leone. The pathetic situation is that there exists no revolutionary force capable of filling the virtual political vacuum there. The inherent inability of imperialist capital and what is called globalisation to produce even limited economic development and the corresponding social and political stability is the immediate source of the problem. Warm regardsGeorge Pennefather Be free to check out our Communist Think-Tank web site athttp://homepage.eircom.net/~beprepared/ Be free to subscribe to our Communist Think-Tank mailing community bysimply placing subscribe in the body of the message at the following address:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
