Louis: You said:
> But I am trying to address the question of whether Argentina is > qualitatively different from Great Britain. My purpose in these posts > is to answer a current within Marxism that asserts that there is no > difference. In that case you were complicating matters by referring to other cases (e.g. Canada and Australia). I simply responded to what I perceived as a critique of the (very widely held) view that there are significant historical similarities between the economies of Argentina and Australia. In regard to the following: > I am trying to help > Marxists make elementary distinctions that will help them carry out > solidarity work, not develop a class analysis of Great Britain or > Canada. and > I am dealing with the question of national oppression and > You don't seem to find the category imperialist meaningful in the > sense that Lenin did. Not necessarily. I would ask: "why would Marxists any longer seek solidarity with bourgeois nationalists, except in the now rare circumstances where the formal national question has never been resolved?" The world has changed a great deal since Lenin's lifetime: in particular, there are now very few cases of formal/legal/military/direct control. Do you not see decolonisation since 1945 as a major historical event? Isn't there a world of difference between imperialism in India in 1920 and Argentina in 2002? > But Australia is not a semicolony in the sense that Argentina is. Why not? > Pushing countries around is not the same as imperialism. Because the > USA is hegemonic, it can influence economic and political affairs > across the globe. But it has a different kind of relationship to > Latin American countries than it does to European countries. Does "European" include Australia? That will be good news to the miniscule conservative faction that has floated the idea of EU membership. If your "Europe" does include Australia, then there is evidence of more than "hegemonic" interference by the US in economic and political affairs here. > There is a wealth of literature that has explained this, from Baran-Sweezy to > Wallerstein. Those are my ideological influences. What are yours? I agree strongly with the classic formulation that "ideology is false consciousness". If you mean theoretical influences, then my view is that there is no substitute for Marx's own method (even if I disagree with the way he used it on some occasions). > There is also a powerful bourgeoisie that includes people like Rupert Murdoch. This is not a good example; News Corporation has been based in New York for years. Murdoch is also now a US citizen, if that means anything. I'm sure there are ex-Argentine billionaires as well. > Let Argentine capitalists off the hook? If you want to have a > discussion with me, don't put words in my mouth. I apologise and hope to read a full discussion of their activities. Regards, Grant Lee.
