Re: [A-List] Re; Capitalism itself is a false target

[Bill Totten <shimogamo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Henry, Michael.  Bill

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:17:06 -0400
"Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Neo-liberalism is the rationalization of neo-imperialism. Dollar 
> hegemony replaces the pound sterling hegemony of the British Empire.  
> The super-national institutions of WTO, BIS, IMF etc are out to 
> neutralize the institution of nation states that has been the basis of 
> world order since the Peace of Westphalia, reducing national 
> sovereignty, the sole remaining defense mechnaism against 
> neo-imperialism, to irrational obstacles of market fundamentalism.  The 
> fact that transnationals exploit domestic workers as well as foreign 
> workers does not make such corporations less imperialistic. 
> Neo-imperialism is made more obvious by US exceptionism and unilateralism.
> Its the same empire theme as Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri.
> Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism - Hobson via Lenin.
> I agree entirely with Michael's observations.
> 
> Henry C.K. Liu
> 
> Michael Keaney wrote:
> 
> >Later in his article, Colin Tudge writes:
> >
> >As corporations grow, they become global in scale. Eventually, it does
> >not matter whose country belongs to whom. All countries become mere
> >territory, and a source of labour for the corporations  - th cheaper
> >the better. Imperialism is dead not because it is outlawed but because
> >it is no longer necessary. There is no need to go to the trouble and
> >expense of occupying somebody else's country if you can occupy the space
> >without such effort.
> >
> >-----
> >
> >Imperialism is dead? This will come as quite a shock to millions of people
> >living in countries that are the victims of imperialism, here and now. Aside
> >from Iraq, whose occupation might be regarded as a special case, there is
> >the issue of neo-colonialism, in which the older relationships of colonial
> >exploitation are continued via the intermediacy of a fraction of the
> >national bourgeoisie that is dependent upon these relationships.
> >Imperialism is absolutely necessary in order for capitalism to function -- 
> >it has not gone away, it's just evolved, and, as the case of Iraq shows, it
> >can soon revert to older forms if deemed necessary (i.e., when "our
> >sonofabitch" becomes too unreliable).
> >
> >Tudge continues:
> >
> >So the present economy is capitalism in an extreme form: a form that
> >earlier, broader thinkers (Jefferson, Madison, Keynes) specifically
> >warned against. It may be summarised as monetarist/ industrialist/
> >corporatist/ globalist: MICG. Capitalism in itself is not the evil. That
> >is a false target. MICG very definitely is; and the people who spelled
> >out the evil most cogently were capitalists themselves. Edward Heath
> >once spoke of "the unacceptable face of capitalism". That face is now
> >official world policy.
> >
> >-----
> >
> >Again, no effort is made to ask why this should be. Marx explained very
> >clearly that the natural tendency of capitalist accumulation is towards
> >monopoly. Keynes believed that, left to itself, capitalism would, if not
> >self-destruct, then at the very least produce sub-optimal outcomes
> >(equilibrium unemployment = reserve army = "natural rate"). Thus for
> >capitalism to survive it requires the "intervention" (in accordance with the
> >classical liberal mythology of the separation of market and state) of the
> >state, which begs the question, if capitalism itself is not the evil, why
> >does it necessitate state "intervention"? It must be those "bad people"
> >again. Where have all the good guys gone?
> >
> >I'm sorry, but I cannot take Mr Tudge's "analysis" seriously, regardless of
> >which part of his article I examine. It is premised on such fundamental
> >falsehood (which is not to impugn his motives or integrity) that it is
> >simply not worth spending any more time on.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>