IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Some of the latest installments in this long debate include an article in June, 2006 by Charlie Post called "The Labor Aristocracy Myth" <http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1110> and a reply by Steve Palmer entitled "Labour Aristocracy: mythmakers and their mistakes" appears in the current issue of _Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism!_ <http://www.revolutionarycommunistgroup.com/frfi/195/> Part of this debate concerns which position has "grave empirical problems". See the tables in the _FRFI_ article which, according to Palmer, "completely corroborate Lenin's analysiu of imperialism and totally undermine Post's argument". Does anyone on the list want to take a position on this debate? Which side does the data (by which I mean all of the relevant data, rather than only that presented by Palmer) support? In solidarity, Jerry
- [OPE-L] _Capital_ and Empire: An Interview with John Bellamy Foster, glevy Sat 24 Mar 2007, 11:22 GMT
- [OPE-L] Tobin Tax, Jurriaan Bendien Sat 24 Mar 2007, 00:18 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [OPE-L] Tobin Tax, Jurriaan Bendien Sun 25 Mar 2007, 13:03 GMT
- [OPE-L] Primitive Accumulation Returns to Ithaca, Jerry Levy Fri 23 Mar 2007, 00:27 GMT
- [OPE-L] debate on labor aristocracy, glevy Thu 22 Mar 2007, 20:10 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [OPE-L] debate on labor aristocracy, Jurriaan Bendien Thu 22 Mar 2007, 23:35 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] debate on labor aristocracy, paul cockshott Fri 23 Mar 2007, 09:36 GMT
- [OPE-L] debate on labor aristocracy, Jurriaan Bendien Sun 25 Mar 2007, 19:41 GMT
- Re: [OPE-L] debate on labor aristocracy, Paul Cockshott Sun 25 Mar 2007, 21:27 GMT