Re: [OPE] The Financial Times says the Left haven't got a clue

["paul bullock" <paulbullock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

ï

David,

 

AS  I understand you your sentences 1 and 2 of para two are contradictory, although you use the term 'characterisation'  to divorce the term 'drive' from any notion of necessity:

you nevertheless ( sentence 1, para 1) seem to accept that 'firms'  ( collectively capitalism) drive to expansion .  What am i think... that Hitler only 'characterised' his Third Empire with the name but didn;'t really want a bigger and better one that would last for 1000 years?

 

With respect to the cold war, you see the west as acting defensively... which seems to me to be really stopping any real analysis. (If this was the simple truth the 'Trotskysists' will be very disappointed since they think the USSR had given up the revolution). In any case the cold war was certainly perfect for the creation of a new sort of Kautskyism, by which we could conveniently ignore any notion that  monopoly capitalism   'is distinguished by a minimum fondness for peace and freedom, and  by a maximum and universal development of militarism'. ( guess who)

 

 

paul

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Dave Zachariah" <davez@xxxxxx>

To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:28 PM

Subject: Re: [OPE] The Financial Times says the Left haven't got a clue

> Hi Paul,
> 
> I agree that territorial states --- which 
are surplus appropriators --- 
> in conjunction with the expansionist 
drive for capital accumulation by 
> firms results in a tendency toward 
inter-state conflicts. If one 
> considers the capitalist world economy as 
an abstract system then this 
> is one of its inherent tendencies. My 
objection is against simplistic 
> claims about 'wars being necessary for 
the system'. The *actual* wars 
> that occur in this context cannot be 
deduced from such general 
> tendencies, they can only be predicted from 
more proximate factors.
> 
> The expansionist drives of the Axis 
powers can certainly be 
> characterized as attempts to create empires. 
But WWII cannot simply be 
> reduced to a war of imperialist rivals. It 
was importantly a war between 
> fascist and anti-fascist political 
forces, and the latter were composed 
> of both supporters and enemies of 
imperialism.
> 
> Similarly, I don't think the Cold War policies of 
Western powers cannot 
> be reduced to a matter of need for raw materials 
and expansion of 
> capital accumulation, i.e. the classical capitalist 
form of imperialism. 
> They originated from the fact that there were two 
incompatible modes of 
> production: the ruling classes in the West feared 
that if Communist 
> movements would spread the existence of 
privately-owned capital would be 
> under threat.
> 
> //Dave 
Z
> 
> 
> 
> paul bullock wrote:
>> 
Dave,
>>
>> I wasn't prescribing an 'answer'... I asked a 
question. Nevertheless 
>> there seems to me no doubt that ww1 and ww2 
were inter imperialist 
>> wars... for germany and japan their own 
accumulation of capital 
>> required huge new markets and opportunities 
for investment.... they 
>> saw only one way out.. war.. the extension 
of diplomacy by other means..
>>
>> You mistakenly infer a 
automatic and mechanical  form of explanation 
>> from my 
question. In the case of Cambodia, no one can forget the 
>> statement 
that the USA would bomb it back to the Stoneage for its 
>> essentially 
passive role in Vietnamese logistical operations in its 
>> national 
liberation struggle. Why was US imperialism commiting 
>> genocide in 
SE Asia? Did that 'system' not see the raw materials ( 
>> vide 
Eisenhowers famous comments on Vietnam) , and future territoral 
>> 
operations for its accumulation  of capital, as essential? Clearly the 
>> general shape of conflicts is formed , if not always directly 
>> specified , by  each of the imperialist powers forcing 
themselves 
>> forward at the expense of weaker nations and where 
necessary other 
>> imperialist states....
>>
>> ... 
or should i take refuge in theories of accident, lunatic 
>> 
politicians, communications failure, the essentially aggressive nature 
>> of homo sapiens, and other tripe, for  millions of deaths over 
huge 
>> territories?
>>
>> Paul 
Bullock.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: 
"Dave Zachariah" <davez@xxxxxx>
>> To: 
"Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OPE] The 
Financial Times says the Left haven't got a 
clue
>>
>>
>>> paul bullock 
wrote:
>>>> why do you think that inter imperialist conflicts 
including war are 
>>>> not 'necessary' for the system? What 
other explanations do you have 
>>>> for  all the wars of 
the 20th Century.... types of 'unecessary' causes?
>>> and Jerry 
wrote:
>>>> My point was that a World War is not necessary for 
the resolution of 
>>>> the
>>>> _current_ 
economic crisis.
>>>
>>> To say that imperialist wars 
are 'necessary' for the resolution of 
>>> capitalist economic 
crises is an extreme form of functionalism. I 
>>> think that the 
causal mechanisms that it postulates have little 
>>> evidence. I 
cannot see any meaningful way to say that World Wars I 
>>> and II 
were necessary for capitalist economies. WWI in particular was 
>>> 
a result of imperialist rivalries for sure, but it is quite a leap to 
>>> say it was 'necessary for the 
system'.
>>>
>>> I agree with Jerry that *all* the wars 
of the 20th century were 
>>> certainly not imperialist. In that 
case the Vietnamese invasion of 
>>> Cambodia that ended the 
genocidal Khmer Rogue regime would have been 
>>> an 'imperialist 
policy', something I find ridiculous.
>>>
>>> //Dave 
Z
>>> 
_______________________________________________
>>> ope mailing 
list
>>> ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>>
>>
>> 
_______________________________________________
>> ope mailing 
list
>> ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> 
ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope