[lit-ideas] Re: hist deT
- From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 14:46:39 +0200
Omar is wholly correct, lenin simply xeroxed the Hobsonian confused views
into a semi-hilferding schem of "financial capital"
that lenin was a perhaps greta, but capable leader in politics, and rather
lousy theoretical builder of any theory is not in dispute
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If we are going to quibble about the terms, perhaps it is indeed time
> for JL to provide some kind of Gricean 'ordinary language analysis' in this
> area as well. Thus, instead of a debate about capitalism and imperialism,
> we can have a debate about 'what we must mean' when we use these words,
> spiced with a few implicatures.
>
> O.K.
> On , Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Who said that Lenin excluded Britain and France ? Britain is
> paradigmatic in his analysis.
>
> The way he uses the term 'imperialism' is to refer to the monopoly stage
> of capitalism. That usage was consistent with Hobson's and not particularly
> odd at the time. The point is that Lenin sees territorial imperialism as
> proceeding inevitably from the economic structures of monopoly capitalism.
> The older empires might have been imperialistic in different ways.
>
> O.K.
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:45 PM, Lawrence Helm <
> lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> No definition of Imperialism that excludes the Persians, Rome, France,
> Holland, Britain, etc., is valid. If anyone owns the word it seems to me
> it must be the states that gave rise to it. Since Lenin gave the word a
> new definition, why didn’t he go all the way and invent a new word?
> Maybe Lenin thought why bother because Communism was going to take over
> the world.
>
> Lawrence
>
> *From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Omar Kusturica
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:42 AM
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: hist deT
>
> Imperialism as Lenin uses it is an analytic term, and it is
> characterized by five features:
>
> (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a
> high stage
> that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic
> life; (2) the
> merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation on the
> basis of this
> “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital
> as distinguished
> from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the
> formation
> of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the
> world among
> themselves; and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among
> the biggest
> capitalist powers is completed.
>
> If something fits this description, it is imperialism, whatever it calls
> itself. If we are going to wait for a politico-economic system to extend
> its hand and introduce itself as 'imperialism' before we apply the term, we
> are going to have a long wait.
>
> O.K.
> On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:19 AM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7345 - Release Date: 04/14/14
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2014.0.4569 / Virus Database: 3882/7345 - 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: