Hello Simon,
When you write:
that imperialism is (arguably) the current international capitalist relationship
does not mean that our definition of capitalism is somehow inadequate
What is the relationship between the two part of the sentance as
they do not seem to logicall follow. Surely a
Simon,
I was fascinated to read your comment:
Please, not imperialism. Capitalism.
Well, I had no idea that there were socialists of any sort who
actually opposed the word Imperialism entirely. It is hardly a
Leninist term as the the nice Mr. Hobson was a staunch Liberal.
Unless you are
Simon writes, poetically:
Our job is not to pull the baby out of the womb. We are the baby, to use
the metaphor, being born. Or rather, we are a butterfly in the making,
reconstituting from a caterpillar via the pupae phase (the political
understanding, i.e. the form) to bursting from the
In his reply to me Simon just gives us more of the same.
But he adds:
And on value, well, we've been over this. You are talking
about suspending the PRICE mechanism.
No, Dave's right here, there's no capitalist price without value, as Marx
makes perfectly clear in the Grundrisse, the
