[lbo-talk] more "who"

[James Heartfield]

The problem with Richard Seymour's approach is that he is always trying to explain away those changes that are taking place. What use is it to go on about how fundamentally things will never change, if you are not going to look at the things that are changing? You need to ask why it was that capitalist elites retreated from the explicit politics of 'white supremacism', and why they introduced the policies of affirmative action. I can remember arguing that capitalism in South Africa could never do without apartheid, and lo and behold, they abolished it. 

Wasn't the big distinction between Bukharin and Lenin's books on imperialism that B. used up all his ink insisting that despite appearances, nothing much had changed, while Lenin (presumably spurred on by B.'s failure to deal with the problem properly) wrote a book about the new stage in capitalist development, the point at which it had reversed its general course of development. Change is what needs to be explained, more than continuity 

Richard wrote:

"it will always be characterised by
imperialism and potential inter-imperialist rivalry.  For that reason, it
cannot shed 'race' or some analogue function in its political-ideological
imaginary.  Thirdly, since national states will be required to manage the
labour market, and since national demographics do not always favour
accumulation, some basis for admitting and deterring migrant labour will be
required.  That means forms of national and racial discrimination will
persist. "