[lit-ideas] hist deT
- From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:17:12 +0200
what I find, culturally, perplexing is that while there is more and more
logical space to doubt determinism in the real sciences, there are people
who make bizarre claims about determinism about or "on" historical facts,
where is no way even to identify the so called events (consider,
preecisely, "imperialism": is it at works between the Han in China & the
Tibetans? if so is that a phase of which capitalism? dalai Lama's
parents'?; or else consider Afghanistan, who is imperial over what? the
Ussr and the US over the same territory as phases of what?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Lawrence Helm
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> It would be difficult to prove that Capitalism produced the two world
> wars. At the time of the First World War, Monarchies were instrumental.
> At the time of the second Fascism (being a system of National Socialism)
> was instrumental. Liberal Democracy, antithetical to both those systems,
> has been the last man standing, the only viable system remaining after the
> 20th century conflicts and Russian Communism collapsed in 1989.
>
>
>
> Fukuyama (whom I like to cite) hasn’t changed his mind since writing *The
> End of History and the Last Man*. What he did object to was the activism
> of the Neocons and wrote a book divorcing himself from them. A problem I
> have with Fukuyama is that in supporting Kojeve and Hegel he too subscribes
> to a sort of historical determinism, except his subscription is fairly mild
> and he does seriously consider Nietzsche’s denouncing of the “last man” and
> the threat of the occasional ubermensch.
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 3:11 PM
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Empires and is the U.S. one
>
>
>
> As first, Lenin provided an excellent analysis of the capitalism of the
> late 19. and the early 20. century. Such a benign capitalism produced two
> world wars, not mentioning its other merits.
>
>
>
> The essay does not contain historical predictions, other than the title
> implies that 'the highest form of capitalism' should also be the last, to
> Hegelians and Marxists. I'd hardly think that Kojeve's interpretations of
> Hegel are more reliable than those that Marx and Lenin had.
>
>
>
> The Fukuyama whom you like to cite has changed his opinions considerably
> in the meanwhile.
>
>
>
> Much of Lenin's essay remains relevant, to me.
>
>
>
> O.K.
>
> On Monday, April 14, 2014 11:50 PM, Lawrence Helm <
> lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia says Carr was a “quasi-Marxist.” Marx preached an historical
> determinism which may be where Carr got his, but a lot of the “the
> US-is-an-Empire” talk came from that rather than from a showing that the US
> is like Rome or the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or British Empires. It has
> become for the modern Marxist/Leftist a pejorative term rather than a quest
> to determine what it is precisely that comprises an Empire and whether the
> U.S. fits.
>
>
>
> Since Marx we’ve had Francis Fukuyama building on Kojeve arguing that
> Hegel was right after all (and Marx was wrong). The end of history is
> Capitalism, or to use its modern expression, Liberal Democracy, and not
> Communism. The Leninistic “Imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism”
> argument therefore becomes otiose.
>
>
>
> Niall Ferguson, no Marxist, thinks the U.S. is an Empire but hasn’t
> produced a definition or an argument to substantiate that idea as far as I
> know. There is a sense in which the U.S. performs like the “World’s
> policeman” on occasion. And there was the handing off of the “world’s
> policeman’s baton” from Churchill to Eisenhower and the U.S. becoming
> committed in South East Asia somewhat as a result, but unfortunately not to
> attempt to rescue France’s chestnuts but to attempt to keep a domino from
> falling (in the then believed theory about the best way to battle
> Communism).
>
>
>
> Wilson, representing a majority view (IMO) supported the “four freedoms”
> at the end of WWI and did not approve of the French, British, and Italians
> desire to split up the after-WWI-pie but was outsmarted by them. The U.S.
> as the last-man-standing in regard to military and economic power after
> WWII enforced its prejudice against empires. The breakup of the British,
> Dutch and French empires after WWII was to some extent due to this U.S.
> prejudice. So I end up shaking my head at Ferguson’s arguments and setting
> his books aside (although I did complete a few).
>
>
>
> Someone in regard to India pointed out that Britain made an inconsistent
> empire in that it promoted the idea of “freedom.” Sooner or later a
> colony, as in the case of the 13 & India is going to see that inconsistency
> and revolt in order to become like Britain, free. Colonies, at the very
> least, seem to be one of the things an Empire needs to have in order to be
> called an Empire – at least so it seems to me.
>
>
>
> Does the U.S. have troops in Japan and Germany in order to exercise
> Imperial demands? That would be a bit hard to demonstrate because
> following in Britain’s footsteps it advocates freedom and could not get
> away with exercising a force that would counter that. China and others in
> Asia feared a resurgence of Japanese militarism; so the U.S. is saying,
> “look, we shall keep troops there. We shall make sure that doesn’t
> happen.” The same situation exists in Europe. Some still fear a German
> militaristic resurgence; so the U.S. is there to assure other European
> nations that it will not permit that to happen.
>
>
>
> If someone wants to argue that the U.S. is currently performing the role
> of “World’s policeman” I would not argue with that. Pat Buchanan and
> others have argued that we can’t afford to keep doing that, and here we may
> be entering H. P. Huntington’s realm. It should be the “core nation” from
> each “civilization” that does that and not just one nation for the whole
> world.
>
>
>
> In short there are some interesting things being written about world power
> and the future. Earlier Marxist-based ideas have for the most part been
> set aside in view of ideas more closely reflecting the modern world. Who
> today would argue that there is a historical-necessity at work that will
> force the world’s nations to become Communistic? And if someone did, who
> would pay attention to him?
>
>
>
> Lawrence
>
>
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
> mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On
> Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* Monday, April 14, 2014 11:35 AM
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Empires
>
>
>
> An aside to Lawrence, since he was mentioning Lenin's Imperialism as the
> Highest Stage of Capitalism: I have read it and I consider it an excellent
> essay, does that make me a Marxist ? I don't see myself as one. I do
> believe that Lenin was a very intelligent and educated man, whatever his
> moral and political faults were. (The same could not be said about Stalin.)
>
>
>
> O.K.
>
> On , Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7344 - Release Date: 04/14/14
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7344 - Release Date: 04/14/14
>
--
palma, e TheKwini, KZN
palma
cell phone is 0762362391
*only when in Europe*:
inst. J. Nicod
29 rue d'Ulm
f-75005 paris france
Other related posts:
