Comments on: Economic determinism & statecraft http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/12/01/economic-determinism-statecraft/ Making the Connections Wed, 08 Feb 2012 20:52:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Curt http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/12/01/economic-determinism-statecraft/#comment-546036 Curt Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:55:25 +0000 http://feralscholar.org/blog/?p=426#comment-546036 I saw this film today The Secret of Oz. It was about hidden messages in the HBO series Oz. Although I was well aware of the problems in the US Prison system this movie provided a much greater knowledge of how we got in to the mess that we are in. Over the centuries people have been fighting to reform this evil mess, different people of course, but people woriking for the benifit of society rather than the benifit of those that profit from fraud and incarceration. At times they have succecced only to see their reforms rolled back by these entrenched special intrests. That really enraged me that honorable citizens must fight this battle for reform over and over again. These special intrests are have been so devious that there is not a place in hell hot enough for them to serve a prison sentence. I had previuosly thought that these problems began in the 20th century but this film pointed out that it goes all the way back to ancient Rome. Shit somethings never chance. Talk about the Buddhist Law of Samsara. This has got to be one of the worst human examples. Luckily for me on not only support the use of force to defend yourself when someone attacks you I support the use of force to take back what others have stolen from you through fraud as well. These private speciail intrests are the 20th and 21st century equivelant of the 19th century slave owners. I encourage you to get worked up about this. I saw this film today The Secret of Oz. It was about hidden messages in the HBO series Oz. Although I was well aware of the problems in the US Prison system this movie provided a much greater knowledge of how we got in to the mess that we are in. Over the centuries people have been fighting to reform this evil mess, different people of course, but people woriking for the benifit of society rather than the benifit of those that profit from fraud and incarceration. At times they have succecced only to see their reforms rolled back by these entrenched special intrests. That really enraged me that honorable citizens must fight this battle for reform over and over again. These special intrests are have been so devious that there is not a place in hell hot enough for them to serve a prison sentence. I had previuosly thought that these problems began in the 20th century but this film pointed out that it goes all the way back to ancient Rome. Shit somethings never chance. Talk about the Buddhist Law of Samsara. This has got to be one of the worst human examples. Luckily for me on not only support the use of force to defend yourself when someone attacks you I support the use of force to take back what others have stolen from you through fraud as well. These private speciail intrests are the 20th and 21st century equivelant of the 19th century slave owners.
I encourage you to get worked up about this.

]]> By: Bob H http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/12/01/economic-determinism-statecraft/#comment-44673 Bob H Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:11:30 +0000 http://feralscholar.org/blog/?p=426#comment-44673 The link about Susan Strange points to an obituary, so here is the link to her paper: <a href='http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/1998/wp1898.pdf' rel="nofollow">http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/1998/wp1898.pdf</a> The link about Susan Strange points to an obituary, so here is the link to her paper:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/workingpapers/1998/wp1898.pdf

]]> By: Stan http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/12/01/economic-determinism-statecraft/#comment-43993 Stan Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:59:25 +0000 http://feralscholar.org/blog/?p=426#comment-43993 Read the stuff, Reverend. What they are saying is not that finance capital is in charge. Al contrario. They are saying that finance capital is being wielded by dominant states as a political weapon, as a form of hostile statecraft. Read the stuff, Reverend.

What they are saying is not that finance capital is in charge. Al contrario. They are saying that finance capital is being wielded by dominant states as a political weapon, as a form of hostile statecraft.

]]> By: Charles http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2006/12/01/economic-determinism-statecraft/#comment-43987 Charles Fri, 01 Dec 2006 20:20:05 +0000 http://feralscholar.org/blog/?p=426#comment-43987 Hey, ye olde holy texter here. I have discussed this issue with Michael Hudson and others. Actually, I buy his thesis and that of Henry Liu on the U.S. using its debtor status to control "creditors", and sort of live off of the rest of the world by borrowing money that they can't be made to pay back. But I do have to note that it's a bit strange when Michael or you say things like "...leftist have such a hard time discerning what is actually going on in the world is that finance capital is now in control", because right there in the holy text _Imperialism:The Highest Stage of Capitalism_, Lenin says that the finance sector of capital is becoming dominate in the imperialist phase. Monopoly, state-monopoly and FINANCE capital. I focus on finance capital in part because Lenin emphasizes it. Go figure. So on the contrary, I do think and know that finance dominates today, because I'm taking a Leninist view of things. Seems to me that Michael Hudson and you kinda _confirm_ Lenin and Hobson, don't contradict them. Lenin said finance is becoming dominate about ..oh..50 years before Michael Hudson did. Hello ? Anybody actually reading what Lenin said in the holy text that you are bashing. I _know_ that Michael Hudson is saying that there is a different , perhaps opposite, configuration of finance capital in 2006 than in 1918 that is doing the dominance. But still, the fundamental observation of the shift to finance capital dominating industrial capital is still in effect; and it didn't start with Michael Hudson. I may succeed at communicating that to him on the A-List if the current threads there keep going. And inversions or turning- into-its-opposite is in line with holy text ( dialectics) too. Inversion is standard Marxism in a process. Marxism is process logic. Processes involve things like things turning into their opposite. Genuine Marxist holy thinking has no problem seeing finance capital of 2006 as some sort of inversion of finance capital of 1918. Contrary to the characterisation of Marxism ,correctly used, it is the theory par excellence of change, not fixity. As Engels said it is not a dogma, but a guide to action. You know, the rational kernel of Hegel: Things change. in leaps, like revolutions. It's the opposite of fixed dogma like religion, God. Some people practice it as dogma, but the holy texts of Marx, Engels, Lenin are quintessential anti-holy text, anti-God, anti-religion. Marx and Engels considered Darwin their theory in natural history because it is a theory of change, evolution. It overthrows a dogmatic idea that all species were created at one time and stayed the same with a theory of how species _change_. It's anti-dogmatic. Lenin never said he was laying down all principles for all times. Quite the opposite. Leninism is the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. But some of the principles he observed are still in effect. Not all change is instantaneous. There are patterns of the long run -like finance capital is now dominant -still. Also, the whole rise of the IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury or Wallstreet dominance domestically are in line with the Lenin principles holy text, not in conflict with it. They still seem to me to be financial institutions exporting capital to colonies just like 1918 (even as the U.S. is importing capital, too; wow, contradiction; never hear anything about contradiction in the Marxist holy texts, do we ?). The whole Third World Debt syndrome hardly conflicts with Lenin's imperialism thesis, though today's world is more complicated with the phenomenon Hudson, you and others espouse. And Marxism is not averse to complexity or complication either. Look at China. Enough to make your head spin. How's that for Marxists apprehending the negation of the negation ? Negation of the negation is a big CHANGE, not a fixity, a rock of ages, nor the eternal. "(Oh, and just adding… one of the keys to US dominance in this new financial architectrue has been subsidies to US agribusiness.)" That would'nt be state-monopoly would it ? Nawww. Couldn't be. Too old fashion an idea. In the name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost Amen Reverend Brown Hey, ye olde holy texter here. I have discussed this issue with Michael Hudson and others. Actually, I buy his thesis and that of Henry Liu on the U.S. using its debtor status to control “creditors”, and sort of live off of the rest of the world by borrowing money that they can’t be made to pay back.

But I do have to note that it’s a bit strange when Michael or you say things like “…leftist have such a hard time discerning what is actually going on in the world is that finance capital is now in control”, because right there in the holy text _Imperialism:The Highest Stage of Capitalism_, Lenin says that the finance sector of capital is becoming dominate in the imperialist phase. Monopoly, state-monopoly and FINANCE capital. I focus on finance capital in part because Lenin emphasizes it. Go figure. So on the contrary, I do think and know that finance dominates today, because I’m taking a Leninist view of things. Seems to me that Michael Hudson and you kinda _confirm_ Lenin and Hobson, don’t contradict them. Lenin said finance is becoming dominate about ..oh..50 years before Michael Hudson did. Hello ? Anybody actually reading what Lenin said in the holy text that you are bashing.

I _know_ that Michael Hudson is saying that there is a different , perhaps opposite, configuration of finance capital in 2006 than in 1918 that is doing the dominance. But still, the fundamental observation of the shift to finance capital dominating industrial capital is still in effect; and it didn’t start with Michael Hudson. I may succeed at communicating that to him on the A-List if the current threads there keep going.

And inversions or turning- into-its-opposite is in line with holy text ( dialectics) too. Inversion is standard Marxism in a process. Marxism is process logic. Processes involve things like things turning into their opposite. Genuine Marxist holy thinking has no problem seeing finance capital of 2006 as some sort of inversion of finance capital of 1918. Contrary to the characterisation of Marxism ,correctly used, it is the theory par excellence of change, not fixity. As Engels said it is not a dogma, but a guide to action. You know, the rational kernel of Hegel: Things change. in leaps, like revolutions. It’s the opposite of fixed dogma like religion, God. Some people practice it as dogma, but the holy texts of Marx, Engels, Lenin are quintessential anti-holy text, anti-God, anti-religion. Marx and Engels considered Darwin their theory in natural history because it is a theory of change, evolution. It overthrows a dogmatic idea that all species were created at one time and stayed the same with a theory of how species _change_. It’s anti-dogmatic.

Lenin never said he was laying down all principles for all times. Quite the opposite. Leninism is the concrete analysis of the concrete situation. But some of the principles he observed are still in effect. Not all change is instantaneous. There are patterns of the long run -like finance capital is now dominant -still. Also, the whole rise of the IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury or Wallstreet dominance domestically are in line with the Lenin principles holy text, not in conflict with it. They still seem to me to be financial institutions exporting capital to colonies just like 1918 (even as the U.S. is importing capital, too; wow, contradiction; never hear anything about contradiction in the Marxist holy texts, do we ?). The whole Third World Debt syndrome hardly conflicts with Lenin’s imperialism thesis, though today’s world is more complicated with the phenomenon Hudson, you and others espouse. And Marxism is not averse to complexity or complication either. Look at China. Enough to make your head spin. How’s that for Marxists apprehending the negation of the negation ?

Negation of the negation is a big CHANGE, not a fixity, a rock of ages, nor the eternal.

“(Oh, and just adding… one of the keys to US dominance in this new financial architectrue has been subsidies to US agribusiness.)” That would’nt be state-monopoly would it ? Nawww. Couldn’t be. Too old fashion an idea.

In the name of the Father , the Son and the Holy Ghost

Amen

Reverend Brown

]]>