Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 7, 2024, at 3:35 AM, hari kumar via groups.io > wrote: > > Maybe I am getting it wrong - but your note is phrased as though I support > China now. > I didn't mean that. thanks, Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33385): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33385 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 6, 2024, at 1:18 AM, hari kumar via groups.io > wrote: > > However I also think it is worth remarking that there is one major omission > (maybe that is the wrong word - see below). It seems to me, there is a very > clear refusal to acknowledge that Lenin very clearly - and in whatever > relevant writing is examined - that the task in the semi-colonial and > colonial worlds, is to move from the bourgeois democratic stage "without a > Chinese Wall" and "uninterruptedly" - to the "revolutionary stage". I think > there is a blurring of that line. I don't know, Hari. https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/#en70 notes Lenin's use of "uninterrupted revolution" in his address to the 2nd Congress, but JBF didn't say where the concept originated, which brings us to the 6th Congress. > Since JBF notes the role of M.N.Roy in the formulation of the 2nd Congress > CI theses, I believe there is a fundamental reason for this. JBF calls the > 6th Congress and the “Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies > and Semi-Colonies” in the Comintern’s Sixth Congress, in 1928, represented a > high point". But by then I think the 'blurring of the line' had been firmly > incorporated. The Theses dictates policies to the national parties as if they were units of a military division taking orders from central command. Centralized control by the Comintern emerged at the 6th Congress. Soon afterwards, Moscow expelled most of the leadership of the CPUSA, installed WZ Foster as party chairman, and established the norm that Moscow determines who runs the national parties and how. Decades later, when the clique running the soviet government made the decision to restore capitalism, there were no organized masses to fight it. The gains of the Russian Revolution dried up like the mismanaged Aral Sea. What about China? One might believe that China is not a capitalist country, maybe it's "transitional" or a hybrid market/planned economy. If the transition to capitalism has not yet happened, who will oppose it when it does? I don't believe that the gains of any revolution can be preserved if it is entirely dependent on the good intentions of a group of party elites with absolute power. If the family of China's president is already worth in excess of US$1B today, what's to stop the privatization of state-owned sectors tomorrow? Who would fight against the restoration of capitalism in China by privatizing land or transferring state assets to private ownership as happened in Russia? I think this lack of democracy enables environmental destruction. We have theories for why capitalism destroys the environment such as by using "cheap nature" for inputs and a place to deposit pollutants that are produced along with the commodities. Why does environmental destruction happen in a country that's not run by capitalists? Maybe the first problem is that it is dangerous to speak out against environmental destruction in places where capitalists don't own critical enterprises or run the country. As an example, https://monthlyreview.org/2024/10/01/marxist-ecology-in-china-from-marxs-ecology-to-socialist-eco-civilization-theory/?mc_cid=27c819b9cf completely dodges the problems of environmental destruction in China. This paper is the work of an assistant professor in the School of Marxism, Tsinghua University in Beijing, People’s Republic of China. In the MR article, the professor asserts the prevailing belief that "the logic of capital is the root cause of the ecological crisis" but not the logic of the Chinese system that causes it to recklessly destroy the environment. The author does not consider their own country as a source of pollution and greenhouse gases. I consider that article an example of the chilling effects of a system that does not allow free speech even on scientific and engineering matters, or free assembly, or independent organization. I see this as part of the legacy of the 6th Congress of the Communist International. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33380): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33380 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 04:18 AM, hari kumar wrote: > > However I also think it is worth remarking that there is one major omission > ( maybe that is the wrong word - see below). It seems to me, there is a > very clear refusal to acknowledge that Lenin very clearly - and in > whatever relevant writing is examined - that the task in the semi-colonial > and colonial worlds, is to move from the bourgeois democratic stage > "without a Chinese Wall" and "uninterruptedly" - to the "revolutionary > stage". Critical point and I wish Lenin were as *un* ambiguous as Hari is and thinks Lenin was. Unfortunately, I find ambiguity in Lenin's remarks that lends support to the criticism that Lenin's identification of national liberation with a "bourgeois-democratic" phase is the (re)iteration of stage-ist theory and the ignoring of the significance of uneven and combined development to colonialism. It reminds me a bit of Lenin's "democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry"--a "hedge" on the bet so to speak. Rereading the JBF essay after Hari's essential analysis-- it seems to me that one of JBF's goals is preservation of that ambiguity and a hedge against the bet on transformation of "national liberation" into proletarian revolution. Thanks to Hari. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33343): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33343 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
A bit late on this theme, however may I simply blame Diwali and family birthdays in a tight cluster - well I will if allowed or not! Likely also it is a theme that for the moment will get drowned in post-election discussions - so I'll put down something. However, FWIW - very little to anyone else I imagine - I think that J.B.F's - very well written and concise - piece - needs much more careful review. It is a key piece. The various insights thus far that several commentators here have made are certainly helpful, to me at any rate. One of these that I am thinking more about for eg is that Sartesian's remark reminding us of the historical critique of Lenin's position, as per Rosa Luxemburg ( sartesian@... ( https://groups.io/g/marxmail/profile/6968774 ) · #33327 ). Like Sartesian and Mark B, I have not read all - certainly not Arghiri Emmanuel. But many of the others I have. Including a lot of Mao, M.N.Roy, Mariategui, and Stalin. This is just a rather long way of saying I need to do a fair bit more before I am confident I can tease out all of the strands in the piece. But it is surely a key article - it will take more digestion at least for me. However I also think it is worth remarking that there is one major omission ( maybe that is the wrong word - see below). It seems to me, there is a very clear refusal to acknowledge that Lenin very clearly - and in whatever relevant writing is examined - that the task in the semi-colonial and colonial worlds, is to move from the bourgeois democratic stage "without a Chinese Wall" and "uninterruptedly" - to the "revolutionary stage". I think there is a blurring of that line. Since JBF notes the role of M.N.Roy in the formulation of the 2nd Congress CI theses, I believe there is a fundamental reason for this. JBF calls the 6th Congress and the “Theses on the Revolutionary Movement in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies” in the Comintern’s Sixth Congress, in 1928, represented a high point". But by then I think the 'blurring of the line' had been firmly incorporated. I cannot in truth, view Foster's refusal to highlight this as an omission really. I fear it has more of the character of an evasion and a gloss. Because this is the fundamental core of Mao's writings and actions - namely to gloss over that distinction. And directly following him were the Cubans, and surprisingly un-remarked thus far in this strand, the Venezuelans. And David W - it is exactly also what Khalid Bhakdash did (I know I owe you a detailed explanation - but I have to find the damn thing. I reviewed him a long time ago and I regret that I do not think I put it up in a retrievable manner). Even if none of the later ones (Castro Che, Chavez) may have directly cited Mao - they followed his path. Some of them even wending their way from the 'countryside to the city' into a theory of the 'guerilla elite' that to me - comes straight out of Mao. In an earlier recent piece at MLRG.online, I had noted JBF's utmost praise of Chavez rolling over to defence of Maduro. This current key piece of JBF is a very much more accessible piece. It is one explicitly designed to defend and uplift those such as Vijay Prasad and their objective (also actually - openly subjective) support of today's China - in the new terrain of conflict between USA and allies vs China and Russia. That can hardly be glossed over. I really believe these two links [(i) - the 'over-looking' of Lenin's 'Chinese Wall' (ii) the lining up with today's China)]; have been neglected on the list. Possibly because of the relative length of J.B.Foster's piece but more likely its eloquence. I think in fact the complete logic of the key piece is designed to unequivocally support the pro-China lobby on the left. FWIW - Thus far I think that only Walter Daum Nov 3 #33295); and Charlie ( Charlie Nov 2 #33288 ) have put their finger on this, in their abbreviated notes to the list. And in addition, a few have previously noted the money machine behind Vijay Prasad. Including if I recall right Michael Pugliesi and Charlie (Eg: " Singham's money buys expensive NY Times ad for People's Forum": Charlie Oct 22 #33104). So Mark B - you responded to Marv G (See 'Re: The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left' Mark Baugher Nov 3 #33302). Marv had written that: "Chinese and Russian "imperialism" and various "sub-imperialisms" criticized in the Monthly Review article are shared by the great majority of active contributors on the list, including, I believe, all of the moderators." Mark - you replied: "Is that what the article was about?" Mark: My feeling is that yes - that is exactly what the article was about. I do not know whether the entire body of moderators believes that or not - but it is a 'thing' and a repetitive discussion on the list - no? So Marv: I think you are right - it is a recurrent theme here. But I am astonished that you Marv, should then go on to say in a later note (cannot be both
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 4, 2024, at 7:53 PM, Marv Gandall via groups.io > wrote: > > What you're picking up from me is that I believe the central issue which > Bellamy Foster is addressing has been debated many many times on the list. I think JBF and MR contributors have analyzed these issues in other venues, and one could expect that here, but the article doesn't do that (https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/#en70). There's no analysis of the Ukraine invasion by Russia in the context of imperialism. In those works, Lenin's writings on the role of self-determination and proletarian unity, including between the Ukrainian and Great Russian workers remained unexplored as Lenin's and the Comintern writings are forced into a narrow context. I haven't identified the "humanitarian imperialists" that JBF mentions in his rogues gallery, and maybe that would be the people who support Ukraine in the Russian invasion. The assertion that Ukraine is only a proxy war is assumed, not explained. The class nature of China is assumed not analyzed. Also assumed in the first paragraph of the article is that there exist "Eurocentric sections of Western Marxism." "Eurocentrism" was not defined but hurled, which tips off the reader in the first sentences that the article is more about heat than light. While the literature on Eurocentrism is surely something well understood by the MR cognoscenti (like sartesian, I read few of the writers mentioned), so the uninitiated must try to bridge the gap between what Samir Amin and others wrote on the topic and the assumptions JBF's makes about those he critiques. The writers chosen for JBF's critique serve as foils for an otherwise very good review of Lenin's works on Imperialism, colonial revolution, and self determination - from a certain perspective. The references alone make the paper worthwhile as does the quality of scholarship. I thought the paper was a very interesting ride to nowhere. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
China is not a capitalist system? Expropriates capital through out the world has a class system with billionaires anti independent unions and workers. On Monday, November 4, 2024, Marv Gandall via groups.io wrote: > [Edited Message Follows] > [Reason: Corrected to clarify that Bolivarian Venezuela never expropriated > its capitalist class. China and Cuba did, and each has not yet restored a > capitalist system. None of the three regimes are partial to capitalism. ] > What you're picking up from me is that I believe the central issue which > Bellamy Foster is addressing has been debated many many times on the list. > It's the split on the Marxist left concerning the terms "imperialist" and > "sub-imperialist" or whether, as Arrighi, H & N, Harvey, Robinson, and > others contend, the concept has outlived its usefulness in a world > dominated by multinationals. Of course this theoretical question has > crucial political implications. > > The reason I anticipated it would not be favourably received is because > most here subscribe to the inter-imperialist thesis, with some preoccupied > to the point of obsession with so-called Chinese and Russian "imperialism" > than with US imperialism. That is not JBF's position nor Michael Roberts' > nor mine, as my intro to the essay made clear. I think Bellamy Foster is > less critical of the regimes in his stout and necessary defence of > Venezuela, Cuba, and China than I and probably Roberts would be, but that > is a secondary matter since none of us, unlike on the list, would describe > any of them as partial to "capitalism". > > But, as I said, we've endlessly debated this issue and I for one am > somewhat tired of it and would live with our differences. If we were poised > to take power, these theoretical and strategic questions would warrant the > heat expended on them, but we're a far way removed from that. > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#0): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/0 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
Yes, I've read it, although I have not read many of the people he criticizes in his essay. It seems to me that it's quite possible to disagree with Lenin's theory without denying a) the existence of imperialism b) the fundamental fact that advance of class struggle in the so-called advanced capitalist countries requires rejection of and opposition to the imperialist extensions, pretensions, mechanisms so integral to the capitalist mode of production. Rosa Luxemburg is one example of (a) and (b). Clearly one country can exploit, oppress another nation or nationality--Britain and the Irish struggle comes to mind, and I have no problem answer items 4-12, if anyone is interested. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33327): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33327 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 4, 2024, at 5:57 PM, sartesian via groups.io > wrote: > > Challenging MG to provide some evidence for his claim that the "list" would > not welcome JFB's essay is proof that the "list" does not welcome JFB's > essay. Have you read https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/#en70? I'm interested in hearing your take on it S.Artesian. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33326): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33326 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
[Edited Message Follows] [Reason: Corrected to clarify that Bolivarian Venezuela never expropriated its capitalist class. China and Cuba did, and each has not yet restored a capitalist system. None of the three regimes are partial to capitalism. ] What you're picking up from me is that I believe the central issue which Bellamy Foster is addressing has been debated many many times on the list. It's the split on the Marxist left concerning the terms "imperialist" and "sub-imperialist" or whether, as Arrighi, H & N, Harvey, Robinson, and others contend, the concept has outlived its usefulness in a world dominated by multinationals. Of course this theoretical question has crucial political implications. The reason I anticipated it would not be favourably received is because most here subscribe to the inter-imperialist thesis, with some preoccupied to the point of obsession with so-called Chinese and Russian "imperialism" than with US imperialism. That is not JBF's position nor Michael Roberts' nor mine, as my intro to the essay made clear. I think Bellamy Foster is less critical of the regimes in his stout and necessary defence of Venezuela, Cuba, and China than I and probably Roberts would be, but that is a secondary matter since none of us, unlike on the list, would describe any of them as partial to "capitalism". But, as I said, we've endlessly debated this issue and I for one am somewhat tired of it and would live with our differences. If we were poised to take power, these theoretical and strategic questions would warrant the heat expended on them, but we're a far way removed from that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33324): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33324 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
What you're picking up from me is that I believe the central issue which Bellamy Foster is addressing has been debated many many times on the list. It's the split on the Marxist left concerning the terms "imperialist" and "sub-imperialist" or whether, as Arrighi, H & N, Harvey, Robinson, and others contend, the concept has outlived its usefulness in a world dominated by multinationals. Of course this theoretical question has crucial political implications. The reason I anticipated it would not be favourably received is because most here subscribe to the inter-imperialist thesis, with some preoccupied to the point of obsession with so-called Chinese and Russian "imperialism" than with US imperialism. That is not JBF's position nor Michael Roberts' nor mine, as my intro to the essay made clear. I think Bellamy Foster is less critical of the regimes in his stout and necessary defence of Venezuela, Cuba, and China than I and probably Roberts would be, but that is a secondary matter since none of us, unlike on the list, would describe any of them as definitively "capitalist". But, as I said, we've endlessly debated this issue and I for one am somewhat tired of it and would live with our differences. If we were poised to take power, these theoretical and strategic questions would warrant the heat expended on them, but we're a far way removed from that. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33324): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33324 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
Let's see if I understand Marv correctly: Challenging MG to provide some evidence for his claim that the "list" would not welcome JFB's essay is proof that the "list" does not welcome JFB's essay. I don't know what you call that in logic class, but I call it f$%ked up. and supremely. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33323): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33323 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
I think it's evident that the MR essay, as I said, would "not be received favourably", the argument being that Foster Bellamy has created an straw man (person?) which has little or nothing to do with Marxism and the views expressed on this list. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33322): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33322 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
On Mon, Nov 4, 2024 at 02:00 PM, Marv Gandall wrote: > > At first glance, pretty much everything from #4 on, though I'm not about > to do a search of the archive to produce a footnoted report. To be clear, > I don't agree with certain forumulations in the essay but I do strongly > agree with its overall thesis. Can you give a single example of any of those positions from #4 on being a consensus opinion or receiving substantial support on this list? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33320): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33320 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
Hi Marv > On Nov 4, 2024, at 11:00 AM, Marv Gandall via groups.io > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:47 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > Which of these sentiments have you heard on the list? At first glance, pretty > much everything from #4 on, Recall we are talking about https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/#en70 and its list of points quoted in https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33302. Marv argues that the statement "humanitarian imperialism designed to protect human rights is justified" is a sentiment widely supported among the few dozen people who frequently post to marxmail. "Humanitarian Imperialism" (https://www.amazon.com/Humanitarian-Imperialism-Using-Human-Rights/dp/1583671471) is a term that applies to politicians like Samantha Power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power) but is an epithet when applied to us. I don't know why I have to defend that point from Marv, a frequent user of the marxmail. How about "imperialism is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another." Who among us believes that? > though I'm not about to do a search of the archive to produce a footnoted > report. Those two statements above aren't about "Euro-centric Marxism" but non-Marxism. > To be clear, I don't agree with certain forumulations in the essay but I do > strongly agree with its overall thesis. Which is what? Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33317): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33317 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 10:47 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > > Which of these sentiments have you heard on the list? At first glance, pretty much everything from #4 on, though I'm not about to do a search of the archive to produce a footnoted report. To be clear, I don't agree with certain forumulations in the essay but I do strongly agree with its overall thesis. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33316): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33316 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
It is the denial of imperialism, and of resistance to it, that those on the left in solidarity with Ukraine are pointing to. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33311): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33311 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 3, 2024, at 9:04 AM, Marv Gandall via groups.io > wrote: > > Chinese and Russian "imperialism" and various "sub-imperialisms" criticized > in the Monthly Review article are shared by the great majority of active > contributors on the list, including, I believe, all of the moderators. Is that what the article was about? Here is what JBF is arguing against in the article, point by point: "(1) one nation cannot exploit another; (2) there is no such thing as monopoly capitalism as the economic basis of imperialism; (3) imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalized transnational capitalism; (4) all great powers today are capitalist nations engaged in interimperialist struggle; (5) imperialist nations can be judged primarily on a democratic-authoritarian spectrum, so that not all imperialisms are created equal; (6) imperialism is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another; (7) humanitarian imperialism designed to protect human rights is justified; (8) the dominant classes in the Global South are no longer anti-imperialist and are either transnationalist or subimperialist in orientation; (9) the “anti-imperialist left” is “Manichean” in its support of the morally “good” Global South against the morally “bad” Global North; (10) economic imperialism has now been “reversed” with the Global East/ South now exploiting the Global West/North; (11) China and the United States head rival imperialist blocs; and (12) Lenin was mainly a theorist of interimperialism, not of the imperialism of center and periphery." Which of these sentiments have you heard on the list? Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33302): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33302 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
On Sun, Nov 3, 2024 at 08:27 AM, Mark Baugher wrote: > > Why do you think it will not be received favorably on the list? We have a > diversity of opinion on this list and in its moderation. Based on my observations, the dubious notions of Chinese and Russian "imperialism" and various "sub-imperialisms" criticized in the Monthly Review article are shared by the great majority of active contributors on the list, including, I believe, all of the moderators. A very few, eg. myself, Vladimiro Giacche, and lawatwork, agree with JFB's incisive criticism. You could always take a poll if you still think my anticipating that the essay would not be viewed favourably on this list is somehow unfair, even slanderous. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33300): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33300 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
While a super-radical version of Roy Cohn here thinks he scores a point about "the denial of the plain fact that there is an aggressor," let us recall: > > "There is not a single word in the Basle Manifesto about the defence of > the fatherland, or about the difference between a war of aggression and a > war of defence ;" Lenin, "Opportunism and The Collapse of the Second > International, " Jan. 1916. > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33299): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33299 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 3, 2024, at 7:27 AM, Marv Gandall via groups.io > wrote: > > "Slanderous", Mark? Seriously? My statement that "it will not be received > favourably on the list"? You've just tagged the article as "racist". If > anything, I was carefully understating the reaction I was expecting. https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33294 did not tag the article as racist, and that is obvious. But I'll try again without any words that might trigger you, Marv: Why do you think it will not be received favorably on the list? We have a diversity of opinion on this list and in its moderation. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33297): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33297 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
"Slanderous", Mark? Seriously? My statement that "it will not be received favourably on the list"? You've just tagged the article as "racist". If anything, I was carefully understating the reaction I was expecting. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33296): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33296 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
As to the denial of imperialism, Foster’s article is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It denies Russia’s imperialism (loudly proclaimed by Putin) and China’s quasi-imperialism (capitalism with imperialist characteristics). The US is not the only imperialist power on earth. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33295): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33295 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
> On Nov 2, 2024, at 10:04 AM, Marv Gandall via groups.io > wrote: > > "The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left” which will not be received > favourably on this list. I read it and some references, navigating MR's looney information technology where logging in once is never enough. Much more can be said about the long article, but I have no clue as to why Marv thinks that it will not be reviewed favorably on the list - meaning, not anyone? After reading the article, I think Marv's statement is slanderous, like the oxymoron "Eurocentric Marxists," which I think is scholarly for "racist." Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33294): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33294 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
Here we have another very common pattern of Imperialism denial: the denial of the plain fact that there is an aggressor by saying that “China-U.S. contradiction is an objective consequence of capitalist development”. Obviously the war is favored by NOT contrasting the aggressor at home, also by justifying him by reference to “objective consequences of capitalist development”, and not the other way round. in Inviato da iPhone > Il giorno 2 nov 2024, alle ore 18:58, Charlie via groups.io > ha scritto: > > > Foster: > > "Following the 2007–2009 Great Financial Crisis and the continuing rise of > China, Barack Obama instituted his 'Pivot to Asia.' This was followed by the > New Cold War on China initiated by the Donald Trump administration, which was > carried forward by the Joe Biden administration." > > The China-U.S. contradiction is an objective consequence of capitalist > development. Foster, like a liberal and like Gandall on this list, can only > argue "who started it" and "who is the aggressor" – just like the social > democrats in Germany and France and England and the U.S. who pushed workers > to the slaughter in World War One. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33289): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33289 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [marxmail] The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left
When it comes to the big contradiction between monopoly capitalist countries, Foster goes against Lenin's work on imperialism: "Following the 2007–2009 Great Financial Crisis and the continuing rise of China, Barack Obama instituted his 'Pivot to Asia.' This was followed by the New Cold War on China initiated by the Donald Trump administration, which was carried forward by the Joe Biden administration." The China-U.S. contradiction is an objective consequence of capitalist development. Foster, like a liberal and like Gandall on this list, can only argue "who started it" and "who is the aggressor" – just like the social democrats in Germany and France and England and the U.S. who pushed workers to the slaughter in World War One. Bellamy Foster is with them and against the Lenin who stood with the workers of these countries and who led the Russian working class to overthrow Kerensky and take the country out of the war. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#33288): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/33288 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/109354806/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: marxmail+ow...@groups.io Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
