Re: On Social Imperialism (Reply to dms)

[DMS <dmschanoes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

M.Junaid Alam:

1. Let's go all the way back to the beginning.  Nestor asked was Lenin so 
blind.  The
answer is of course not.  No.  But what did Lenin do in Imperialism?  He 
surveyed
the changes in the organization of capital from the period of app. 1896-1906.   
So
I think it's only fitting that we conduct a similar survey in the changes of 
the organ-
ization of capital, let's say from 1992-2002.  Have you done that?  I have.  
I'll
send you a copy when I get home.  Perhaps I'm mistaken in my analysis but before
we characterize things as fantastically nonsensical, we should at least look at 
the
information.

2. I never stated that the wealth of the advanced countries is unrelated to the
conditions in the less developed areas.  On the contrary, I have consistenly 
argued
for the totality of capital, the interlocking of advanced and the forced under-
development of global capitalism.  It is the precise nature of that relation 
that
requires careful examination and something more than just the parroting of
phrases clipped out of somebody's interpretation of somebody elses analysis.

3. If you read Imperialism, and read it carefully, you will see that Lenin has
a certain precise characterization of the rentier state, including his 
estimation
of the amounts, and the benefit of the amounts certain advanced centers are
clipping in their coupons from the colonial world.  That formulation of a 
rentier state
simply does no exist.  Global capitalism in general and the advanced areas in
particular do not exist on the interest from holdings in bonds, loans, and 
other debt
instruments.

4. As far as the bribing of the working class through the "distribution of 
wealth" ex-
tracted from the less developed areas-- this assertion I would think would 
generate
at least as much examination in so far as means and mechanisms as Marx applied
to Capital itself, because distribution is inherently part of the accumulation 
process.
So somebody should be detailing the changes in the reproduction of capital, in
the reproduction of the social relationships that defines capital based on this 
change
to the distribution of extracted surplus value.  Lenin, despite his references 
to
bribery and parasitism, clearly states that  no such change has not occurred.

5. Your passion regarding the vicious nature of advanced capitalism is welcome,
but it requires an equally passionate analytic review of capital as a total 
system
to become something more than a ritual denunciation of imperialism.

dms


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.