e Received ---
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:44:22 -0700
Subject: [PEN-L:18961] Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussion of Empire 26.10.01
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Schofield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Schofield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Ian, I would put to you that given the concept of Imperialism
developed by Lenin (which I believe lies at the core of our collective
understanding) - the evidence is in a sense just in such an exhaustion
of the means of I
economy and using this
democratic socialist struggle as a mainspring for international
solidarity which maifests in actual changes of inter-state
relations.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
--- Message Received ---
From: Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Su
Greg Schofield wrote:
>
>
> Ian, I would put to you that given the concept of Imperialism developed by Lenin
>(which I believe lies at the core of our collective understanding) - the evidence is
>in a sense just in such an exhaustion of the means of Imperialist competition.
>
> Bear with me
Ian thank you for you reply and I will do my best to respond to it.
--- Message Received ---
From: "Ian Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:13:55 -0700
Subject: [PEN-L:18922] Re: Re: Discussion of Empire 26.10.01
From: &q
From: "Greg Schofield" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> "Empire" in essence only makes one grand point, a point that has
been religiously avoided - Imperialism is over and is in the process
of being transformed into a "new world order" [Empire?] - of which we
seem to get not even a glimmer of its true for
urford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 23:27:27 +0100
Subject: [PEN-L:18912] Re: Discussion of Empire 26.10.01
At 20/10/01 13:08 +0800, Greg wrote:
>Doug and all, the discussion of Callinocos' criticism of "Empire" may well
>be true, b
At 20/10/01 13:08 +0800, Greg wrote:
>Doug and all, the discussion of Callinocos' criticism of "Empire" may well
>be true, but does not I think hit at the critical question itself.
>
>Insofar as the authors continue to give support to their pet form of
>struggle, Callinocos' criticisms are worth
Jim, you can put "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" marxist in quotes if you
wish, but the point is that grossmann and mattick did not refer to their
theoretical efforts that way. i wish you would forgo using such appellations
even in quotes.
As I said, there are theoretical and empirical reasons
ge Received ---
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:26:26 -0400
Subject: [PEN-L:18890] Re: Re: Re: Re: Discussion of Empire, 26.10.01
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>> C 2) Negri's belief that class struggle influences the profit
>> rate (Callinicos' position is the orthodox rising OCC one); 3)
>> Negri's hostility to the idea of a Vanguard Party.
>
>Something screwed up here. Marx is fairly clear that a social el
I wrote:
> > the key issue is whether or not the profit falls due to (1) wages rising
> > relative to labor productivity (i.e., a fall in the rate of surplus-value
> > due to a rise in the value of labor-power) or (2) a rise in the organic
> > composition of capital [the OCC] (i.e., a fall in the
oops out the door. meant it's hard to see why the rate of exploitation would
decrease in secular terms over the course of accumulation, though it's easy to
see why it may not tend to increase sufficiently.
rb.
ps this statement was a blunder; what I meant is above:
For such reasons, it is d
Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >
> > > C 2) Negri's belief that class struggle influences the profit
> > > rate (Callinicos' position is the orthodox rising OCC one); ...
>
> Carrol writes:
> >Something screwed up here. Marx is fairly clear that a social elem
>Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > C 2) Negri's belief that class struggle influences the profit
> > rate (Callinicos' position is the orthodox rising OCC one); ...
Carrol writes:
>Something screwed up here. Marx is fairly clear that a social element
>enters into the value of labor power -- that is th
From: "Carrol Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> Doug Henwood wrote:
> >
> > C 2) Negri's belief that class struggle influences the profit
> > rate (Callinicos' position is the orthodox rising OCC one); 3)
> > Negri's hostility to the idea of a Vanguard Party.
>
> Something screwed up here. Marx is
Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> C 2) Negri's belief that class struggle influences the profit
> rate (Callinicos' position is the orthodox rising OCC one); 3)
> Negri's hostility to the idea of a Vanguard Party.
Something screwed up here. Marx is fairly clear that a social element
enters into the valu
Chris Burford wrote:
>Can anyone precis the highlights of the critique by Callinicos? Is
>it a critique of form or essence?
He cites several errors: 1) Negri's excessive optimism about class
struggle; 2) Negri's belief that class struggle influences the profit
rate (Callinicos' position is th
At 17/10/01 20:01 -0400, you wrote:
>Chris Burford wrote:
>
>>This has been forwarded to several lists, but not I think to PEN-L
>>
>>That a journal as serious as Historical Materialism should set up this
>>talk and that someone as careful of his reputation as Alex Callinicos,
>>should want to b
19 matches
Mail list logo
