Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Jim: 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. George: The working class under imperialist capitalism is essentially reactionary. It is its very existence as a reactionary social form and the specific form of that reactionary character that makes it possible for it to choose communist revolution--its very antithesis as a working class. 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]
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] ---
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] ---
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 itself. In other words, capitalism combines destructive and
creative elements. It develops the forces of production, but on a narrow
and exploitative basis.
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.
In message 005301bfbda0$5895e9e0$baff869f@oemcomputer, George
Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
It is not, as Jim suggests, a quantitative
undialectical matter of "the predomination of capitalism's
reactionary side over its progressive". Capitalism today is
essentially reactionary in character. Any features which Jim may
describe as progressive have in fact a reactionary essence whose
source is located in the dialectical. What Jim describes as the
progressive features of capitalism today are merely devices to
perpetuate capitalism as a reactionary system and are thereby
correspondingly reactionary. Capitalism today is a reactionary
system which means that the bits that Jim labels as progressive
constitute component parts of the overall system which means that
their essence is determined by their existence as constituents in
the overall system. Since the system, as a whole, is reactionary so
to are its parts. Capitalism must be conceived systemically. Jim
pedestrianally mistakes appearance for essence. Capitalism must be
conceived and analysed as a dialectical unity whereby the essence
of the parts are determined by the essence of the whole --internal
relations as opposed to external relations.
Warm regards
George Pennefather
--
Jim heartfield
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
Jim Heartfield: Progressive imperialism? I have often been criticised for insisting on the persistence of progressive trends within capitalism, such as the (intermittent) development of productivity, but it would not have occurred to me to insist on the progressive aspect of imperialism.As I read it Lenin's characterisation of imperialism was not simply a euphemism for military intervention, but precisely the predomination of capitalism's reactionary side over its progressive. Lenin proposes as anexample of the progressive side, the application of science to production, with large monopolies. But the struggle for the division and re-division of the world by the decadent nations, he counts as reactionary, and I tend to agree with him. George Pennefather :It is not, as Jim suggests, aquantitative undialectical matter of "the predomination of capitalism's reactionary side over its progressive". Capitalism today is essentially reactionary in character. Any features which Jim may describe as progressive have in fact a reactionary essence whose source is located in the dialectical. What Jimdescribes as the progressive features of capitalism today are merely devices to perpetuate capitalism as a reactionary system and are thereby correspondingly reactionary. Capitalism today is a reactionary system which means that the bits that Jim labels as progressive constitute component parts of the overall system which means that their essence is determined by their existence as constituents in the overall system. Since the system, as a whole, is reactionary so to are its parts. Capitalism must be conceived systemically. Jim pedestrianally mistakes appearance for essence. Capitalism must be conceived and analysed as a dialectical unity whereby the essence of the parts are determined by the essence of the whole --internal relations as opposed to external relations. 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]
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
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. -- Jim heartfield --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes What Jim is opposing is any discrimination between the different actions of imperialist powers as to which are progressive and which are not. This is childish leftism, ridiculed by Lenin. Progressive imperialism? I have often been criticised for insisting on the persistence of progressive trends within capitalism, such as the (intermittent) development of productivity, but it would not have occurred to me to insist on the progressive aspect of imperialism. As I read it Lenin's characterisation of imperialism was not simply a euphemism for military intervention, but precisely the predomination of capitalism's reactionary side over its progressive. Lenin proposes as an example of the progressive side, the application of science to production, with large monopolies. But the struggle for the division and re-division of the world by the decadent nations, he counts as reactionary, and I tend to agree with him. Cannot he see for example a progressive side to the pressure the west brought on Croatia, to remove the repressive and racist features of Tudjman's regime and accept bourgeois democratic norms? I think this is a bit far-fetched, really. The entire statelet is founded on a racist reaction against Serbs and muslims - at the behest of its great power sponsors. Any cosmetic measures to disguise that character are only designed to save Germany's blushes, and do not reflect an organic movement against racism in that country. Seeing this new 'state' jump through hoops to entertain its West European masters is not an example of democracy, but of its subordination. This refusal to discriminate between positive and negative policies of imperialism is consistent with the Trotskyist view that opposed participation in the Second World War, Well, I'm all for nylon, passenger flights, nuclear power, computers, radar and all the other progressive spin-offs of the Second World War. I find less to celebrate in Churchill's instruction to General Scobie to occupy Athens as if it were a conquered power, disarm the partisans and hand the country over to the fascist generals who ruled it until the 1970s. It seems to me that the active participants in the Second World War, the partisan movements of Europe were cynically abandoned by the allies, who hung back while Hitler finished them off. Only when the Yugoslav and Russian forces threatened to defeat Germany on their own did Churchill and Roosevelt open up a Western Front, out of sheer panic. I'm interested to know whose side should we be on between, say, Subbhas Chandra Bose's Indian National Army and the British Empire? Was the defeat of the British in Singapore by the Japanese a blow against democracy, or did it rather dislodge British imperialism from East Asia? Were Stafford Cripps and Rajani Palme Dutt right to tour India in 1941 pleading with Congress supporters not to strike against the British Crown? And what about the engineering apprentices and Bevin boys who went on strike in Britain during the war. Was the Communist Party right to denounce them as fascist agents, and supply their leaders' names for employers blacklists? -- Jim heartfield --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
At 08:34 10/05/00 +0100, Jim heartfield wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes IMO this particular British involvement is progressive and is part of the developing process of world governance, so long as it assists the UN and the West African peace keeping force to re-organise. I say that, conscious at this moment, that the British government deserves strong criticism for its interference in the developing land redistribution in Zimbabwe. Well, its hardly surprising. Chris has lined up behind ever imperialist venture in the post-cold war world by my recollection. Cheap shots are part of the internet, but you only have to look at the last passage that Jim quoted, to see that this is a cheap shot. What Jim is opposing is any discrimination between the different actions of imperialist powers as to which are progressive and which are not. This is childish leftism, ridiculed by Lenin. Cannot he see for example a progressive side to the pressure the west brought on Croatia, to remove the repressive and racist features of Tudjman's regime and accept bourgeois democratic norms? This refusal to discriminate between positive and negative policies of imperialism is consistent with the Trotskyist view that opposed participation in the Second World War, something steadfastly propagated by the owner of "the" Marxism list. It is not the subjective intentions of the imperialists that makes imperialism Of course. That is why even when we see a positive feature in their policies, we do not "line up" behind them. Chris Burford London --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes IMO this particular British involvement is progressive and is part of the developing process of world governance, so long as it assists the UN and the West African peace keeping force to re-organise. I say that, conscious at this moment, that the British government deserves strong criticism for its interference in the developing land redistribution in Zimbabwe. Well, its hardly surprising. Chris has lined up behind ever imperialist venture in the post-cold war world by my recollection. It is naive in the extreme to think that there has to be a bag of gold being robbed at that moment to imagine that the impulse is simply benign. Egypt and the Sudan were occupied and subordinated to British rule by people who genuinely believed that they were fighting slavery. It is not the subjective intentions of the imperialists that makes imperialism, it is the objective condition of the subordination of small states to 'mature economies'. -- Jim heartfield --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
