Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-17 Thread George Pennefather
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-15 Thread Jim heartfield
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-15 Thread Charles Brown
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-15 Thread George Pennefather
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-14 Thread Jim heartfield
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-14 Thread George Pennefather
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-14 Thread Jim heartfield
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-12 Thread Jim heartfield
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-11 Thread Chris Burford
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

Re: M-TH: British intervention in Sierra Leone

2000-05-10 Thread Jim heartfield
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