Re: Re: apologies/colonial question
In a message dated 3/25/03 6:12:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When Iraq was first colonised by Britain in 1917, Iraqis were fed the same British propaganda about liberation through occupation. We fought the best part of last century to get rid of colonial Britain and, since then, have helped a great number of independence movements worldwide. Iraqis may wish for the current regime to change, but anyone who understands our culture will know that in this war Iraqis will fight and die, not to save President Saddam Hussein, but to protect their home, land, dignity and self-respect from a new world order alien to their way of life. We are an enormously proud people. Comment This question of the self-determination of nation's - in this instance Iraq, from the standpoint of Marxist theory, the doctrine of national development advanced by Marx and Engels, then reshaped in the hands of Lenin as the national-colonial question has undergone radical change in presentation. This question has been observed over a long period of time by generations of Marxist. Each generation is compelled by the logic of industrial development and changes in the form of financial imperial capital to reshape the presentation of the national colonial question based on the specific state of development of the material power of the productive forces. And also, the actual (not merely juridical) equalization of nations based on their standing in reference to the actual economic development of the imperial centers. Currently the world has been economically evened up. This does not mean every area of earth is in possession of identical means of production, but rather that every area of earth has been drawn into commodity production on the basis of a unified and interactive world infrastructure, on which sits the world distribution of the social product. These products are distributed based on possession of money. The world's people can only acquire money by working - selling their labor power. The technological revolution or the economic revolution makes this increasingly difficult for a widening scope of the world's people. A serious presentation and summation of the evolution of the national and then national-colonial question, from the standpoint of Marxism would require a small book running perhaps 40 pages. Without question the direct colonial system was absolutely defeated on a world scale as the result of and as a by-product of the Second imperial World War. The revolution in China and then the war of national liberation in Vietnam was highpoints in this process. This of course includes the hundreds of millions of slaves of imperialism throughout continental Africa and throughout Asia and Latin America. That is to say one can trace the national question and the question of the liberation of colonies from the American Revolution of 1776 up to the defeat of USNA imperial armed forces in Vietnam. No Marxist worth their salt can dispute that USNA imperialism is the international hangmen of the proletarian social revolution and the enemy of the majority of the people of earth. In the face of the impossible, our arrogant bourgeoisie seeks to preserve its privilege position and that of the Anglo-American working class as a social basis for imperial aggression. The representatives of our imperial bourgeoisie have to be elected and to be elected you must protect the livelihood of the people who can vote. The law of value and specifically the operation of the law that govern the organic composition of capital make it impossible to protect the livelihood of the working class. This law basically states that more and more advanced machinery will be added to the production process, eliminating huge sectors of human labor and compel the value system to change under the weight of destruction. Advanced robotics cannot engage in exchange or buy products. Advanced machines can replace the work that 50% of everyone in America and indeed the world do on a daily basis. Here is the essence of the economic revolution that drives the social revolution. Iraq is no longer a direct colony of any imperial power or what for another generation of Marxist was called a semi-colony or Neo colony. The imperialist bourgeoisie long ago adopted self-determination as a political slogan during the era of the first Imperial World War. The aggressive military assault on Iraq at the hands of USNA financial imperialism is not simply a question of the self-determination of the laboring masses of Iraq. How the masses in Iraq resist and fight imperial aggression has what is called a "national character." The "national character" cannot but involve the psychological make-up of the people of this territory and this most certainly includes spiritual longings and religious doctrine. National character is not simply a concept of territory and its economic evolution, but the way people think things out in a given territory, which embraces their hi
Re: apologies
>I am not trying to insult you by characterizing you, but to put my finger on a dilemma. I think it is related to something wrong in the way you approach the relationship between theory and practice . . . .The working people you talk with may be will not recognize the word "hegemony" but they will recognize an agitational equivalent of it. What is the US doing going round playing biggest kid on the block? What is it like for the supplies troops who have just been ambushed and interviewed on Iraqi television? What is it like for the black sergeant who threw grenades into tents in Camp Pennsylvania two nights ago? Why does CNN this morning still report his motivation as a mystery? >What are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they are doing policing the world? Why does someone like Akbar turn to a reactive ideology (I say reactive to avoid the dismissive connotations of reactionary, although it means the same literally) like being a Black Muslim. < Reply You are basically correct in putting your finger on the dilemma. The societal role of the US government, or rather multi-national state of the United States of North America, does not rivet on its bigness or playing the role of the biggest kid on the block. The role of the multi-national state of the United States of North America is fundamentally a question of conduct driven by property relations. The organ of violence in the hands of the historically evolved Anglo-American bourgeoisie is the international hangmen of revolution and the enemy of the peoples of earth. That is the point. Not hegemony or bigness but rather the rule of a class. >If you assume a mainly theoretical, pedagogical approach to politics, while this is not always wrong, you will not see that agitational work can provide a bridge between theory and practice, testing theory but also enriching it.< Reply I proceed from an assumption that there does not exist a "bridge between theory and practice," - as such, by definition. Practical politics deal with the doctrine of conducting the social struggle, not theory of social development. The doctrine of Marx and Lenin proceed from a different axis than the theory. Both require thinking but one must admit that Lenin's doctrine of the "party of a new type" does not arise from a fundamental analysis of commodity production. The party of a new type - the Leninist party, arose as a doctrine of the class struggle at a certain stage of evolution of the social struggle during the period of transition from agricultural to industrial relations. The question Lenin posed was how to create an organization of revolutionaries unified on the basis of seizing the state power - the civic authority. Theory is said to be the law system of unfolding development or a process. By definition this rivets on abstractions. For instance, there is the materialist conception of history, which is not practically related to the doctrine espousing the party of a new type, or the need at this juncture for a broad class party in America. It is interesting that you would raise the case of the solider involved in fragging and using the term "black Muslim" and "what are the feelings of black, or other, members of the US military about what they (US government) are doing policing the world?" Here the question of theory and doctrine becomes paramount. First of all the world is going to be policed as long as "the state" exists as a historically evolved social phenomenon. Theory informs me on this proposition. The feelings of blacks are almost identical to those sections of the Anglo-American people who occupy similar social positions in the working class. This can only be understood on the basis of history. There are variations but the black masses who are working class, not simply black, did not object to Clinton's bombing of black people in other parts of earth. Nor was there any registered outrage over Clinton's Eastern European policy by "black people" in America. It gets worse. Clinton's administration did more to hurt the mass of African Americans - by way of his welfare reform, than all the "reactionaries" over the past 30 years. Clinton was the African American people, "main man" in terms of the specifics of American Ideology and politics. My point is that your assertion is outside the indigenousness Marxism (Marx theory) that evolved in America, because it is classless. In terms of doctrine, the forms of oppression they have faced historically govern the national character of the African American peoples movement. Why millions of African Americans would reject the doctrine of Christianity is no surprise given the fact that Christians enslaved them as a people in America. I thought everyone on earth understood this. Now the question is not really why Blacks gravitate towards Islam, but the role of religion in social life. There is something to your brand of Marxist that caters to the bourgeoisie. I cannot be accused o
Re: Apologies
I wasn't following those threads closely, but I think , for one thing, he is concerned with getting information and ideas in English back into Japanese for those who can't read English. It's a real burden for those who take it on. My hats off to him for all his efforts. There is far too much disinformation about Japan and disinformation going into Japan from the west. Charles Jannuzi Re: Apologies > I thought that his note showed a sincere caring. He may have been > confused, but he seemed like a nice person, making a nice gesture. > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:32:46PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: > > Michael, > > > > I really got our Comrade Miyachi confused, didn't I? It was the > > last thing I wanted to do or, better said, something I never > > wanted to do. I had a Japanese friend during my graduate study > > days and Miyachi reminds me of him: very nice guy from a totally > > different world. > > > > Best, > > Sabri > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: Apologies
I thought that his note showed a sincere caring. He may have been confused, but he seemed like a nice person, making a nice gesture. On Thu, Mar 21, 2002 at 04:32:46PM -0800, Sabri Oncu wrote: > Michael, > > I really got our Comrade Miyachi confused, didn't I? It was the > last thing I wanted to do or, better said, something I never > wanted to do. I had a Japanese friend during my graduate study > days and Miyachi reminds me of him: very nice guy from a totally > different world. > > Best, > Sabri > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8272] Re: Apologies, again, for posting to the world
PEN-L, I did it again: posted to the world, being in a hurry. I apologize and will _really_ try to slow down. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:8272] Re: Apologies, again, for posting to the world
PEN-L, I did it again: posted to the world, being in a hurry. I apologize and will _really_ try to slow down. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:8238] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
>Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to >everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute It seems like late night is a bad time to send email; my apologies for posting my E-NODE column to Penl when I meant to send it to someone else. Anders Schneiderman
[PEN-L:8238] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
>Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to >everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute It seems like late night is a bad time to send email; my apologies for posting my E-NODE column to Penl when I meant to send it to someone else. Anders Schneiderman
[PEN-L:8223] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:8223] Re: Apologies for posting to everyone
Friends, My apologies for posting my reply to Michael Yates to everyone. It's late and I'm tired. Larry Shute
[PEN-L:4540] Re: Apologies
Twice, sid, it went out to use twice -- but hey whose counting!
Re: apologies re: Progressive, quantitative studies of crime?
Let me thank Blair for his apologies. Perhaps I was over-reacting too and if I was I am sorry. My over-reaction stems from the fact that some people were ready to put me off this list two years ago and Jim Devine just reminded me of that sad episode recently when he said he should not even be answering something I had written - I hope Jim you really did not mean that. On crime and violence and poverty and all, I really do believe that violence is caused by poor economic conditions and unemployment. I also believe that most people do not measure the real costs of unemployment and thus underestimate its importance as something to avoid. Thanks again Blair! D.J. McCready Phones: (519) 884-0710, ext. 2563; (519)884-2651; (519)572-3667 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
