>>"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....<<
> Charles: The "thing" that jumps out at me here is reminder of the famous
quote from Marx where he says capital is not a thing but a social relation
between persons, established by the instrumentality of things. <
yes, this is their point.
> Also, I've already explained that reference to a "mine and its resources"
is inherently a reference to "miners". Capital is not a thing, but a social
relation between people through the instrumentality of things such as a
mine.<
at some level, it may well be _inherently_ a reference to miners, to the labour-power in the region, but this was not made clear. and it does need to be made clear since the two are not interchageable: mines may well be operated by labour brought in from elsewhere (as it is, say, with the australian-owned mines in PNG); and, it makes it appear as if what is at issue is who (in the sense of which nationality) owns the resources rather than the conditions under which labour is put to work extracting those resources.
but specifically re Kosovo, eg, the Trepca mines, as far as i'm aware, were privatised after the miners' strikes of 1988/90, with the main beneficiaries being, as they have been in Russia, various govt members and their families. after the privatisation, and with the kosovo miners still on strike, workers (scabs) were brought in from places like poland and bosnia; and a greek company was brought in as a major investment partner. what do you know of the ownership of the resources we're talking about here? are they, were they, privately or publicly-owned?
> Charles: I already gave you the evidence. The post you sent was only half
of the post. I posted the rest, and it was evidence of what I said. You
ignored this<
no, charles, i did not ignore it. i read very carefully -- three times -- what you posted subsequently. nowhere did i see that it conflicted with what i had said, and which you decided was a mischaracterisation. this is what i wrote: "in post after post earlier this year, you insisted that the war against Yugoslavia was being waged in order to grab resources and for arms sales. which is why it took a number of posts from me ... in order to get you even to gesture ever so superficially at the class struggle and things like surplus value, and then promptly return to the resources thing."
that is, what will show me that i am wrong is: a) a post PRIOR to this discussion around the 11th of May where you had not, as i said above, "insisted that the war against Yugoslavia was being waged in order to grab resources and for arms sales"; b) referred in more than a superficial way to the class struggle and the labour power of yugoslav workers AFTER this discussion around May 11th; and c) where you had in fact DISCUSSED (and not simply gestured toward) the class struggles in Yugoslavia, and/or the ex-Yu, and/or even the war itself as part of the class struggle and a deterioration of the conditions of exploitation of yugoslav labour-power PRIOR to this discussion around May 11th.
and no, you do not have to prove anything to me or anyone else about YOU. but, if you want to charge me with lying over and over again, then you will have to prove that i am instead of simply asserting that i am. and, just to be clear: i'm insisting that you prove the allegation because you made it several times and in the most emphatic of ways. you're a lawyer, you know how this works: you accuse me of lying and/or slander and you will have to tender evidence. you had the option of saying something simply like 'no, i don't think this', but you opted instead to yell 'liar' a number of times.
Angela _________