Re: [OPE] The Financial Times says the Left haven't got a clue

From: paul bullock (
Date: Fri Mar 28 2008 - 12:32:50 EDT


AS  I understand you your sentences 1 and 2 of para two are contradictory, although you use the term 'characterisation'  to divorce the term 'drive' from any notion of necessity: 
you nevertheless ( sentence 1, para 1) seem to accept that 'firms'  ( collectively capitalism) drive to expansion .  What am i think... that Hitler only 'characterised' his Third Empire with the name but didn;'t really want a bigger and better one that would last for 1000 years?

With respect to the cold war, you see the west as acting defensively... which seems to me to be really stopping any real analysis. (If this was the simple truth the 'Trotskysists' will be very disappointed since they think the USSR had given up the revolution). In any case the cold war was certainly perfect for the creation of a new sort of Kautskyism, by which we could conveniently ignore any notion that  monopoly capitalism   'is distinguished by a minimum fondness for peace and freedom, and  by a maximum and universal development of militarism'. ( guess who)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Zachariah" <>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] The Financial Times says the Left haven't got a clue

> Hi Paul,
> I agree that territorial states --- which are surplus appropriators --- 
> in conjunction with the expansionist drive for capital accumulation by 
> firms results in a tendency toward inter-state conflicts. If one 
> considers the capitalist world economy as an abstract system then this 
> is one of its inherent tendencies. My objection is against simplistic 
> claims about 'wars being necessary for the system'. The *actual* wars 
> that occur in this context cannot be deduced from such general 
> tendencies, they can only be predicted from more proximate factors.
> The expansionist drives of the Axis powers can certainly be 
> characterized as attempts to create empires. But WWII cannot simply be 
> reduced to a war of imperialist rivals. It was importantly a war between 
> fascist and anti-fascist political forces, and the latter were composed 
> of both supporters and enemies of imperialism.
> Similarly, I don't think the Cold War policies of Western powers cannot 
> be reduced to a matter of need for raw materials and expansion of 
> capital accumulation, i.e. the classical capitalist form of imperialism. 
> They originated from the fact that there were two incompatible modes of 
> production: the ruling classes in the West feared that if Communist 
> movements would spread the existence of privately-owned capital would be 
> under threat.
> //Dave Z
> paul bullock wrote:
>> Dave,
>> I wasn't prescribing an 'answer'... I asked a question. Nevertheless 
>> there seems to me no doubt that ww1 and ww2 were inter imperialist 
>> wars... for germany and japan their own accumulation of capital 
>> required huge new markets and opportunities for investment.... they 
>> saw only one way out.. war.. the extension of diplomacy by other means..
>> You mistakenly infer a automatic and mechanical  form of explanation 
>> from my question. In the case of Cambodia, no one can forget the 
>> statement that the USA would bomb it back to the Stoneage for its 
>> essentially passive role in Vietnamese logistical operations in its 
>> national liberation struggle. Why was US imperialism commiting 
>> genocide in SE Asia? Did that 'system' not see the raw materials ( 
>> vide Eisenhowers famous comments on Vietnam) , and future territoral 
>> operations for its accumulation  of capital, as essential? Clearly the 
>> general shape of conflicts is formed , if not always directly 
>> specified , by  each of the imperialist powers forcing themselves 
>> forward at the expense of weaker nations and where necessary other 
>> imperialist states....
>> ... or should i take refuge in theories of accident, lunatic 
>> politicians, communications failure, the essentially aggressive nature 
>> of homo sapiens, and other tripe, for  millions of deaths over huge 
>> territories?
>> Paul Bullock.
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Zachariah" <>
>> To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OPE] The Financial Times says the Left haven't got a clue
>>> paul bullock wrote:
>>>> why do you think that inter imperialist conflicts including war are 
>>>> not 'necessary' for the system? What other explanations do you have 
>>>> for  all the wars of the 20th Century.... types of 'unecessary' causes?
>>> and Jerry wrote:
>>>> My point was that a World War is not necessary for the resolution of 
>>>> the
>>>> _current_ economic crisis.
>>> To say that imperialist wars are 'necessary' for the resolution of 
>>> capitalist economic crises is an extreme form of functionalism. I 
>>> think that the causal mechanisms that it postulates have little 
>>> evidence. I cannot see any meaningful way to say that World Wars I 
>>> and II were necessary for capitalist economies. WWI in particular was 
>>> a result of imperialist rivalries for sure, but it is quite a leap to 
>>> say it was 'necessary for the system'.
>>> I agree with Jerry that *all* the wars of the 20th century were 
>>> certainly not imperialist. In that case the Vietnamese invasion of 
>>> Cambodia that ended the genocidal Khmer Rogue regime would have been 
>>> an 'imperialist policy', something I find ridiculous.
>>> //Dave Z
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ope mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Mar 31 2008 - 00:00:15 EDT