I didn't see your first post until after I posted the Freikorps reply.
|| CB: The Dimitrov position is not that these gangs are agents of
|| finance capital when they first started, although, of course
|| secret support would by definition would be hard to find. It
|| is their taking state power that is the point of connection
|| with the ruling class. (...)
|| As to what you say about Turkey in 2002, Dimitrov's discussion
|| of concreteness should make it clear that he didn't claim that
|| his definition was eternal. I mean isn't that abundantly clear
|| from his discussion of the need for concreteness ( Leninism is
|| the concrete analysis of the concrete situation). What I said
|| was Dimitrov's defintion was real good for the fascism of the
|| 1920's and 30's. The open terrorist dictatorship part of the
|| definition, and most reactionary sector part seem to be helpful
|| even in the situation you describe in Turkey.
|| ^^^^^
I don't have any big problems with that, as long as the object is not to rehabilitate Dimitrov and his boss, but to reach a working definition.
||
|| CB: Dimitrov says " ELEMENTS" of finance capital. Not all
|| finance capital. Finance capital is the merger of industrial
|| and finance capital in Lenin's defintion. If you are not
|| familiar with Lenin's thesis , you will not get the Dimitrov
|| analysis fully.
|| ^^^^^^
I've never been that hot on Lenin, esp since his "thesis" changed daily with his shifting fortunes; it was "all power to the soviets" in April and down with the Petrograd soviet in October. In my book real socialism is the logical conclusion of Leninism.
Finance capital I took to mean capital that is not tied down to the ownership of a particular means of production, in the marxist sense. Enlighten me as to what advantage there is in removing that distinction. That'd be really rad, since it would get rid of LBO's and massive layoffs. Secondly, does the term offer any advantage in analysing the present situation, where the Bush cabal is supported by primarily energy (mostly Texan) and defence capital? Yes, "elements" is relevant, but how does "finance capital" in your sense help our understanding?
|| CB: Here you are caught on your own klunky version of how
|| Marxists, even Stalinists, think. The answer is that Marxists
|| are not as vulgar materialists as you thought. You falsely
|| attribute a way of thinking to Marxists and then when they
|| don't think that way, you are surprised. Duh. Looks like you
|| are going to have to give up your version of the way Marxists
|| think. Read Engels famous letter to whathisname ( I'll get it
|| if you want it) on the relative autonomy of superstructure.
|| Marxism-Leninism is not vulgar materialism,surprise.
Engels's letter to Bloch is as cool as his other stuff but we're talking about Dimitrov, and therefore about Stalin, which is another cup of tea. If you have proof that Stalin didn't sponsor a strictly mechanistic, _anti-marxist_ materialism, I would be interested to see it.
Anyway, we could go back and forth about ancient history for years and not get anywhere. I think our positions on the present crisis are a lot closer than our readings of history. The Dimitrov definition could be perfect - it is to you bec you give it the most favorable reading possible - but still be too divisive to be useful bec the author is a Stalinist.
Hakki