Re: [OPE] fascism / opposing imperialist military intervention inLibya

Date: Fri Mar 25 2011 - 09:27:19 EDT

> What a stubborn man. If you agreed with me that we want MORE THAN bourgeois
> democratic rights, you should simply have said so or stayed quiet. But you
> picked an unnecessary fight and ended up making silly statements about "100%
> exploitation".
Hi Paula:
All you had to do was carefully read what I wrote. The only thing that was silly
was that I had to repeat 4-5 times what I wrote before you understood it. I'm
still not convinced, though, that we are in agreement since you appear to me
to fail to recognize the downside of bourgeois democracy.

> "Whereas your view on this issue coincides - to a great extent - with the
> geopolitical interests of the leading imperialist nations including the US,
> the UK, and France."
> Those nations have absolutely no interest in defining themselves and their
> other rivals as imperialist.
They have an interest in saying that what they do, all nations do and hence
they shouldn't be condemned for it. To claim that virtually all nations are
imperialist is quite similar to claiming that none are: in either case, the
expression becomes meaningless.

> Imperialism is a stage in the history of capitalism, characterized
> by strong monopolistic tendencies, economic competition of nation-states in
> the context of a world market, etc - as per the classical Marxist theory.
> Therefore, all nation-states that participate in this stage of capitalist
> history are imperialist.
Your "therefore" does not logically follow. The reasoning is similar to a
claim that since crime is rampant in x community then all residents of
x 'participate' in crime.
Also, historically, it makes no sense, imo. If it were true, then Sierra Leone
and the other 9 of the 10 poorest nations in the world in 2010 would be considered
to be imperialist nations today! I can't imagine any reputable historian
agreeing with that claim.
> The weakest imperialist
> nation-state is still imperialist, just like a chihuahua is still a dog.
oy vey.
You have defined the animal kingdom in such a way that all species (countries)
are imperialist (dogs). This mapping of the forest (world) makes it impossible
to understand the complex inter-relationship among species and breeds (countries
and nationalities, classes, and groups).
This is not to say that the theory of imperialism wouldn't benefit by a critical
re-thinking of its applicability today - as, for example, was done by Milios
and Sotiropoulis. But, the claim that all independent nation-states are imperialist
is a non-starter, imo.
In solidarity, Jerry
ope mailing list
Received on Fri Mar 25 09:30:08 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT