Re: Re: The politics underlying the war
In a message dated 3/22/03 12:34:29 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 2003-03-21 16:18 -0500, Melvin wrote: Acknowledged Melvin P
Re: The politics underlying the war
At 2003-03-21 16:18 -0500, Melvin wrote: My discomfort and criticism is not your junior imperialist liberal stance but your non-Marxist standpoint. I am sorry but I absolutely do not accept that I have a junior imperialist liberal stance. I quite understand that some people may think that I either have such stance, or that my stance is indistinguishable shall we say from such a position, or they may choose to imply by innuendo that is my position. But I do not accept it is my stance. After a long description of changes in the relations of production, with which I largely agree, you write: Comrade Chris, everything you write is devoid of this elementary truth and this is the elementary truth that has to be taught - yes taught, to the world's people and especially the peoples in the imperial centers of the world. Indeed I have the feeling you are teaching me or us. I do not see the relationship between theory and practice as one mainly to be resolved through teaching. I agree overwhelmingly with your description of the changes in the economic base, except, and this is important for the war, I do not equate imperialism only with a policy of war and coercion, and that as being separate from the changes in the economic base. I think political power and oppression is inseparably linked with the imperialist economic base. And, this is important, there is more than one political policy for imperialism. There is a political clash going on now as well as a clash between imperialisms in different geographic centres (USA and France) I think that you and Lou are wrong because if one indexes everything both of you have written, nothing is said concerning insight to this stage of the development of the material power of the productive forces. The ideology at each stage in the expansion and transition in the material power of the productive forces is important. I note your impartiality between Louis Proyect and myself on this point, but I would be surprised if that makes you right in your claim. Both of us have been foolish enough to have been contributing to internet debates for at least 6 years. I would be very surprised if I have not alluded to the changes in the economic structure that you refer to, and Louis Proyect has written much more than me. Bottom line, everything you write is devoid of the Marxist standpoint of changes in the mode of production. Really?!?! I can only note your opinion to which you are entitled. your phone dialectics, dialectics are usually difficult, but I do not see the point of asserting my dialectics are phoney, without challenging an example of my using them so I or other people can see how, in your opinion, the dialectical method could be used better. the abstraction called hegemony. Hegemony is not the problem because someone is always one amongst equals. I think this is a big political error in the actual situation at the moment, and suggests to me an idealist rationalisation away from the urgent reality. The imperialist power with forces equivalent to the next ten, or some say 27, most powerful countries in the world, has gone to war with the support of a lesser imperialist power, in contemptuous disregard of the need for global consensus to justify such a measure. It is not just me, it is part of the political currency of world politics that the USA is a hegemonic power or a hyper power. The "number one amongst equals" has the most responsibility to do right because they are in possession of the administration of the vastest productive forces. What worries me about your position is that it appears to give a theoretical argument for taking the heat off the current hegemonic bloc. My discomfort and criticism is your non-Marxist standpoint. We can always apparently authoritatively accuse another correspondent of not being marxist. And sometimes we might be right. But in my experience there is little to be gained by what has to turn into a ritualised squaring off against one another. It is better IMHO to accept that if marxism philosophically is an approach to a truth, through a dialectical and materialist method, - a truth that is always relative and incomplete, it is better to accept that the consciousness of each one of us will be limited, and we have more to gain by debating collectively, sometimes pooling wisdom, sometimes arguing. You pretend that advanced robotics is not undermining the value system. If I am wrong please show me where you have written anything to this fact. I see the marxian law of value as related to the exchange of human labour power as a commodity. I believe that law of value is not undermined, but takes account of changes in the other forces of production, whether it is the use of animal or other forms of power, or new technologies. I do not "pretend". I resent the provocative and unnecessary innuendo. I hold the views I have stated. I feel you have been trying to draw me i
Re: Re: The politics underlying the war
In a message dated 3/20/03 11:21:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 2003-03-20 08:10 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Chris Burford wrote: We will see how the peace movement responds and evolves, and we can each make our personally minuscule contribution to the debate. Peace now, or Cease fire now, may remain the main slogans, but a purely pacifist position will isolate the movement from its wide hinterland, and so I suggest would a campaign based mainly on a rearguard defence of national sovereignty. To the contrary, a "pacifist" (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position By pacifist, I mean someone absolutely opposed to war under all circumstances. I see the peace movement as composed of pacifists, anarchists, and liberals who think the present war is disproportionate and a manifestation of hegemonism. is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. I do not see the main objection to imperialism being that it claims a right to go to war, and I am genuinely puzzled by this emphasis on "right" as if our struggles are mainly about whether we uphold or oppose a moral right. Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is now a global system of oppression and exploitation. Of course it uses war. But its prefered policy is increasingly one of peaceful domination and manipulation, G W Bush not withstanding. I think there is a serious criticism of imperialism that it trashed Africa and did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I might be right or wrong, but a lot of other people think that. Why absolutise a concept of the "right" of imperialism to go to war, or absolutise opposition to it? I absolutely uphold not the right but the duty of imperialism to go to war against Nazi Germany in alliance with Soviet Russia. Louis Proyect and I have well-known and quite unsurprising differences on that. Louis Proyect supports Lenin's position at Zimmerwald. I support the turn in the international communist movement at its seventh congress in 1935. Comment Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is the domination of financial-industrial, which has been driven to a new phase wherein the speculative sector of finance capital writes the global agenda for the world total social capital. In our current era of history what has emerged within the world total social capital is a financial sector with no interest in geographical boundaries that have in the past defined the economic and political authority of various sectors within the world total social capital. The social force called imperialism drives economic development. Imperial means the export of primarily a superior mode of production and its corresponding social organization to a less developed area - as abstraction. The human toil of this export is always written in blood on a parchment of genocide. Thousands of generations of humanity have opposed war on any grounds and each generation produces anti-war warriors. It is incorrect factually to speak of national states in today's world, when in fact most states in the world today are composed of various peoples, at various stages of national development. Even Iraq, which is being subjected to an intense military assault at the hands of my imperialist bourgeoisie, is a multi-national state, with a historically evolved and defined territorial authority. Imperial finance capital is of course a system of "global system of oppression and exploitation" but more than that it is a system of specific property relations, which a corresponding mode of accumulation of the social wealth of society. War as a social institution in human history arises on the basis of the division of labor in human society and the seeking of privileges based on the subjugation, containment or amalgamation of peoples unable to resist a stronger peoples. In today's world no country on earth - or rather, no geographic area on earth can exist and maintain sustenance for its population that does not export and import. The export of industrial relations of production to every corner of the earth has qualitatively reconfigured the world market during the past 150 years. Industrial production relations can be isolated as a specific quality or a specific method of production, distinct from other methods of social production. This "quality" called industrial production has gone through various stages and phases of quantitative expansion. In as much as a more efficient method of production always - always, replaces a less efficient method of production, because it saves time for human individuals to pursue activity outside of reproduction. Imperial expansion on the basis of war and the destruction of productive forces has always been undesirable and unacceptable to immense sections of humanity. This includes a vast section of the dominating peoples. What is called imperial expansion or the implementa
Re: The politics underlying the war
> "chris" == Chris Burford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: chris> obviously futile. But as the stories mount of unnecessary chris> civilian deaths and maimings, and of deaths through "friendly chris> fire" and accidents, this propels the relevance of continued chris> protests, against an unjust and inappropriate use of force. Yes chris> even if they find some prisoners in Saddam's jails who have had chris> their tongues cut out, as they promise us, it will still be chris> relevant to campaign against the excessive and inappropriate use chris> of force! Chris, But where does that leave us (uh, "the left") when or if such stories don't emerge, either because the Pentagon's (rather brillant, IMO) 'embedding' strategy simply strangles the news before it leaks out or, as seems more likely, there *aren't* any such stories to tell? It seems possible, at this very early point, that Bush & Co. will get a relatively bloodless win against Hussein, who will be spun as a paper tiger. In other words, what if Baghdad falls, not with an 'unnecessary' number of civilian deaths, but with none at all? That seems at least possible right now, and if it happens that way, it would seem to seriously undercut what I understand you to be arguing as the basis of an antiwar position. But perhaps I've misunderstood you? (Reading further, I think I agree with your broader point about national sovereignty, but I oppose this war not on those grounds, but because it's neither necessary nor a matter of last resort. Well, and acquiescing to it seems to me to be acquiescing to the enactment of imperial power -- and that just *feels* wrong.) Kendall Clark -- Jazz is only what you are. -- Louis Armstrong
Re: The politics underlying the war
At 2003-03-20 08:10 -0500, Louis Proyect wrote: Chris Burford wrote: We will see how the peace movement responds and evolves, and we can each make our personally minuscule contribution to the debate. Peace now, or Cease fire now, may remain the main slogans, but a purely pacifist position will isolate the movement from its wide hinterland, and so I suggest would a campaign based mainly on a rearguard defence of national sovereignty. To the contrary, a "pacifist" (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position By pacifist, I mean someone absolutely opposed to war under all circumstances. I see the peace movement as composed of pacifists, anarchists, and liberals who think the present war is disproportionate and a manifestation of hegemonism. is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. I do not see the main objection to imperialism being that it claims a right to go to war, and I am genuinely puzzled by this emphasis on "right" as if our struggles are mainly about whether we uphold or oppose a moral right. Imperialism in the sense of the highest stage of capitalism is now a global system of oppression and exploitation. Of course it uses war. But its prefered policy is increasingly one of peaceful domination and manipulation, G W Bush not withstanding. I think there is a serious criticism of imperialism that it trashed Africa and did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda. I might be right or wrong, but a lot of other people think that. Why absolutise a concept of the "right" of imperialism to go to war, or absolutise opposition to it? I absolutely uphold not the right but the duty of imperialism to go to war against Nazi Germany in alliance with Soviet Russia. Louis Proyect and I have well-known and quite unsurprising differences on that. Louis Proyect supports Lenin's position at Zimmerwald. I support the turn in the international communist movement at its seventh congress in 1935. Tactics combine with strategy. If the current demonstrations only oppose as a matter of unarguable principle the "right" of imperialism to go to war, then that is already proved to be obviously futile. But as the stories mount of unnecessary civilian deaths and maimings, and of deaths through "friendly fire" and accidents, this propels the relevance of continued protests, against an unjust and inappropriate use of force. Yes even if they find some prisoners in Saddam's jails who have had their tongues cut out, as they promise us, it will still be relevant to campaign against the excessive and inappropriate use of force! As far as "rearguard defence of national sovereignty" is concerned, I have no idea what this means and, moreover, and am afraid to learn more. What is surprising is if there has temporarily been some measure of common ground between Louis Proyect and myself, who is allegedly indistinguishable from a liberal. What would be much more frightening for both of us would surely be if we were in complete agreement. But without arguing through innuendo and instead to present the case at its best:- in a world in which imperialism, not just as a matter of policy, but by its very nature, is interfering in national sovereignty in so many ways, what are the merits for the democratic forces of the world to try to maintain the right of national sovereignty in every case? National sovereignty is a limited right which has existed to a limited degree for a period of history. The bourgeois nation state is not an absolute structure that has existed for all time and will continue to exist for ever. It is a product of the development of the productive forces. State structures are in a process of rapid change and transition. We are, through the clash of contradictions, watching a process of the formation of a global state structure in which the scope of armed forces and the emergence of global law is central. We do not need to oppose that in every case. Indeed in general it is progressive, relative to the world of individual states. I can see why progressive people in the USA may immediately, in opposing the hegemonistic tendencies of their government, seek to respect the sovereignty of all other nations. But that is too narrow a political base for the participation of the progressive people of the USA as an important contingent of the progressive people of the world. As another speaker said at the demonstration in London yesterday evening: they say there is now only one superpower in the world. But there is another power: the mass power of the people of the world. That mass power will be best expressed in a global movement which subjectively will be a movement for peace and justice. It may often defend national sovereignty against outside oppression, but by no means always. There may be other times when this massive, vibrant force, will flexibly, according to the demands of the situation, transcend national boundaries. Thus to be v
Re: Re: The politics underlying the war
In a message dated 3/20/03 5:10:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To the contrary, a "pacifist" (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. As far as "rearguard defence of national sovereignty" is concerned, I have no idea what this means and, moreover, and am afraid to learn more. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org The political doctrine of Karl Marx appears to have come full circle. His banner was very simple: "Workers of the World Unite," you have nothing to lose but your chains and a world to win. And "the workingman (workers) have no country." In the previous era of development of commodity production, when the industrial infrastructure was still expanding quantitatively and qualitatively and the direct colonial system was being shattered, political doctrine embraced national sovereignty - many times at the expense of "class factors." There is something very rotten about this new slogan of "anti-hegemony," which runs one into support of one section of the capitalist class or another. >From within the most imperial of all countries the issue is the capitalist class, their policies, methods of rule and vision of the world. Their private possession of socially necessary means of production and their political structures to enforce this rule is the problem. It a new era.
Re: The politics underlying the war
Chris Burford wrote: We will see how the peace movement responds and evolves, and we can each make our personally minuscule contribution to the debate. Peace now, or Cease fire now, may remain the main slogans, but a purely pacifist position will isolate the movement from its wide hinterland, and so I suggest would a campaign based mainly on a rearguard defence of national sovereignty. To the contrary, a "pacifist" (in the sense of being opposed to the right of the imperialists to make war) position is the only one that principled Marxists, radicals and progressives can put forward. As far as "rearguard defence of national sovereignty" is concerned, I have no idea what this means and, moreover, and am afraid to learn more. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
The politics underlying the war
If war is the continuation of politics, what are the underlying politics that are being manifested in the war? How will the nature of the war change these? How will they be manifest? Saddam Hussein's defence is essentially political. It is hard to judge the war from the opening salvos - a failed assassination attempt - but Bush may not just be window dressing in saying that the war more be more stretched out than people have supposed.It is interesting that he tried to avoid the word "war". If Saddam launches a counter attack it may be mainly for a political purpose - to send body bags back to the USA. His basic political position is that this is an unjust imperialist war and that the suffering of the Iraqi people will be the responsibility of the aggressors. While using shock and awe, are using psychological warfare, and are likely to try to take the country piece by piece. Entry into Baghdad may be delayed, with a lot of new about the plight of the population. The political battle will be about who is more humanitarian, and there may be initiatives by the United Nations at various moments in the war, calling for a ceasefire and a political compromise. The peace movement will evolve in the face of these politics and military tactics. While the internationalist spirit of being against your own ruling class is a positive prejudice, defence of national sovereignty of all states, is not the sum total of a progressive position. I do not think it is sustainable on a world scale, although I recognise some people would base their position on this. The battle on the security council has not been about intervention or non-intervention - it has been about the timing and the proportionality of the force and pressure used to intervene. It has been a defeat of hegemonism, not of intervention. We will see how the peace movement responds and evolves, and we can each make our personally minuscule contribution to the debate. Peace now, or Cease fire now, may remain the main slogans, but a purely pacifist position will isolate the movement from its wide hinterland, and so I suggest would a campaign based mainly on a rearguard defence of national sovereignty. Propaganda and education is already there but needs to broaden into a movement that is not defeated and demobilised by a hegemonic victory, but campaigns for a wider peace and justice in the middle east and in the whole world. IMHO Chris Burford London
