charles wrote:
>>However, this particular exchange started with Angela calling for
analysis of the relationship between nation-states and surplus value. I
commented that I think that there is more of a link between Marx's analysis
of surplus-value and today's nation-states than she allowed, and it is in
in part Lenin's analysis of imperialism and other subsequent analyses. So,
if you think these issues are important, then these would be how these
posts matter.<<
so then, what do you make of this (an excerpt from "New World Order: The Rhetoric and the Reality" i posted yesterday)?
"Hilferding's definition, on which most of his socialist contemporaries depend, depends in turn on the concept of nation states. To see that invisible but concrete Thing, Capital, moving around the world in search of profits, using nation states to divide the exploited, would require a level of abstraction similar to that achieved by Marx in Capital. Instead, he defines Imperialism in terms of national monopolies exporting Capital and commodities. In other words, nations are more basic than capitalism, and Imperialism is their policy. However, Imperialism was not always carried out by nations. India and Indonesia were founded by companies.
As we saw with Bukharin, nations are hard to define. Hilferding's definition can only be understood as the policy of nation states, which are particular coalitions of capitalist groups with sovereignty (the monopoly of violence) over a particular acreage of the earth's surface. We do not deny that these coalitions exist. But we need to address the question of how fundamental these particular formations are, compared to others. Is the bourgeoisie really split into national groups above all others? Unless it is, Hilferding's definition of Imperialism falls to the ground.
Almost every country is more powerful than others, and tries to dominate its neighbours, apparently ignorant of Marx's advice that a nation which oppresses another can never itself be free. Even the smallest countries harbour designs on bits of their neighbours' territory. "Imperialism means the tendency of nations to dominate others" leads to the view that they are all Imperialist, which would render the term meaningless."
the rest at http://www.webcom.com/wildcat/NWORhetoricReality.html
carrol, surely there's a difference between a conviction that marxism (or any theory) explains all (which i agree, would be dogmatic) and the deliberate omission of a very specific history which doesn't at all require much of a stretch to see the movements of a class struggle being composed and then decomposed into nationalism and war? and what's Bush's New World Order if not the positing of a new strategy of global exploitation (see article above)?
charles, i never said that you thought the resources were exclusive of class struggle. i said that the latter was subordinated to the former as an explanation and in discussion. moreover, what you think in your own private thoughts and what you post is always, as it is for all of us, a decision about what to focus on, which way to bend the stick, intervene in a discussion, and provoke a line of thought. they are not always the same thing for this reason. if you accuse me of lying and/or misrepresenting (that a class struggle analysis was subordinated to economics as an explanation and in discussion), then you should cough up on the evidence, the written evidence. you haven't. and you won't because you can't -- because there was a discrepancy between what you might think as a marxist and what you write here. a very specific discrepancy that was a function of the ways in which you, as did others, determined the framework as one of competing nations and blocs, in which a class struggle analysis became subordinated or largely absented. to put it another way, none of us are mind-readers. in order for me to know what you or anyone else thinks, it has to arrive in words on the screen in front of me. even that doesn't seem to guarantee understanding, but it should at the very least provide some basis for aspiring to such.
on the thorny issue of sexism and racism:
a) no one, least of all those of us who think these are not a matter of personal whim, would deny that they are racist or sexist; b) this is, of course, quite different to a debate over whether or not a particular post or perspective is racist or sexist; and c) i don't think charles was being sexist here, though he was being dismissive and diversionary. but on list dynamics, i'd say that there should always be the space to discuss whether or not x or y argument is racist or sexist. that doesn't mean that we all have to agree that x or y is, it doesn't mean that the assertion of such should be taken at face value, and it certainly doesn't mean that it should be taken at face value simply because it's asserted by either a woman or by a black person. quite often, too often, those assertions are just rhetorical plays that trivialise what should be taken a lot more seriously. but i'll add that if charles can play this game with little evidence (as he did on the issue of mao), then kelley should, if charles is to be consistent, be able to wing it here with as little evidence as was proffered then, which after all, is what i take kelley to mean when she impatiently wondered "if somehow the lesson in how to support an argument had been botched. no one in the room seemed to understand. yes, she was really certain that she thoroughly explained the differenece between assertion of an opinion and reasoned argument, but still....they didn't seem to be putting the lesson to good use.... odd".
Angela _________