Julio Huato wrote,
Considered as wealth, the colonial booty was already consumed, directly or
productively. Or it was wasted. Therefore, its value is gone to never
return.
The value of wealth, productive or not, the value of any non-directly-human
input of production, once consumed, is gone as
there is the banana story,a pound earns the direct producer less than a dime and it sells for more than a dollar."Devine, James" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)]Doug writes:I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the FirstWorld is rich
Tom Walker wrote:
We need to be careful about three distinct relationships here that tend to
get confused one for another: wealth, value and capital. Perhaps the
confusion results from the fact that they can be readily exchanged for each
other. Perhaps capitalism results from the fact that they
In reply to Julio Huato,
The reference is to page 706 of the English translation, Vintage Books. At
some level the distinctions between wealth, value and capital may be
straightforward but they're not so at the margins. Marx, as I read the
passage, quotes approvingly of the notion that real
From: andie nachgeborenen
-clip-
Even if one insisted that a
materialist explanation must be economic, all you
would have to say is that imperialism against the
third world occurs because it is _a_ source of profits
for the first world; it would not have to be the chief
or primary source
Tom Walker wrote:
The reference is to page 706 of the English translation, Vintage
Books. At
some level the distinctions between wealth, value and capital may be
straightforward but they're not so at the margins. Marx, as I read the
passage, quotes approvingly of the notion that real wealth is
[was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)]
Doug writes:I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First
World is rich primarily at the expense of the Third, which is
something I hear people assert pretty often.
The assertion seems to be based on the implicit assumption
Jim, this list is not x-rated. You should not discuss your sex life here.
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 02:15:25PM -0700, Devine, James wrote:
(gonna shake some imperialist booty!)
Jim D.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
No, I think it's based on a confusion between the
moral and explanatory dimensions of value theory. I
think that advocates of this position think that we
cannot attack imperialism against the third world
unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on
the analogy that what is wrong with
Justin Schwartz wrote:
advocates of this position think that we
cannot attack imperialism against the third world
unless we say that what is wrong with it is theft, on
the analogy that what is wrong with capitalist
exploitation of workers is supposed to be theft --
unearned expropriation of what
-
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Devine, James
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 5:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: imperalist booty
[was: RE: [PEN-L] The new Iraqi Flag ( imperialist booty)]
Doug writes:I keep wanting to see some rigorous proof that the First World
Max B. Sawicky wrote:
My guess is that the present value of historic resource
rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial
areas is huge.
I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of
course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on
this list.
Doug
I wrote: The assertion [that the First World is rich primarily at the expense of
the Third] seems to be based on the implicit assumption that first-world workers
don't produce surplus-value. Nor do other workers, so that the whole story is one of
redistribution between regions (unequal
- Original Message -
From: Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: imperalist booty
Max B. Sawicky wrote:
My guess is that the present value of historic resource
rents (mineral, timber, land use) from colonial
areas is huge
Doug Henwood,
I don't doubt that about the past; my query is about the present. Of
course, Brenner disagrees, but I don't want to go near that one on
this list.
But capital is all about the past: dead labour. Those who appropriated the
most dead labour in the past are entitled to appropriate
(I changed the subject line because I think the question of imperialist
booty interferes with the analysis of imperialism. It creates the
illusion that the leopard could change its spots.)
Devine, James wrote:
I think Lennon (or what it Lenin?) had something to say here. You're talking about
Tom Walker wrote:
But capital is all about the past: dead labour.
Or so the Germans would have us believe.
Those who appropriated the most dead labour in the past are entitled to
appropriate more dead labour, compounded, in the future. Doesn't matter if
you appropriated it there then and here now.
17 matches
Mail list logo
