On Nestor's "analysis"

Louis Proyect lnp3 at SPAMpanix.com
Mon May 7 06:53:00 MDT 2001


Julio Huato:
>This is the n-th time I say it.  I do NOT defend imperialism.  I just have a
>different view of the phenomenon.  My thesis is that imperialism is NOT an
>essential manifestation of advanced capitalist reproduction (as Lenin
>thought).  The essence of capitalist reproduction is NOT extra-economic
>force, it is economic compulsion.  Capitalist reproduction presuposes theft,
>plunder, extra-economic force.  Extra-economic force is one of the basic
>historical premises of capitalist reproduction (i.e., the primitive
>accumulation of capital).  But, extra-economic force is NOT the essence of
>capitalist reproduction.  Essentially, capitalist reproduction does NOT
>require extra-economic force to go on.

It is the n-th time you say it and I have decided it is an utter waste of
time to respond to. I will allow Nestor, of course, to reply since it is
addressed to him. But what is the point of debating or discussing posts
that contain Marxist homilies such as "Capitalist reproduction presuposes
theft, plunder, extra-economic force." What is one supposed to say in reply
to this? "Society is divided into classes?" "Commodities are the end
product of alienated labor?" Jesus fucking christ, this is not a beginners
class on Marxism. We assume that everybody understands these things.

What we need is a concrete analysis of the concrete class struggle. You
have the audacity to impugn the level of discussion on this mailing list
for its failure to examine class relations and the economic situation of a
country like the USA. Well, I am posting something on airline deregulation
today or tomorrow that should address your concerns. That being said, what
exactly have we learned from you about Mexico? The more you write, the more
I am wondering if you actually live there.

I post an EPI report on how the economy of Mexico has stagnated and how
poverty has increased since the passage of NAFTA. Did this elicit a
response from you? NO. I posted an article on Chiapas and land hunger in
reply to your false claim that the PRI bent over backwards to accomodate
the Indians. Did this inspire you to offer a point-by-point rebuttal of the
piece, largely based on George Collier's excellent book on the EZLN. NO.

You are beginning to remind me of a character named Juan Inigo who used to
post frequently to the Marxism list that we descended from. He was in
Argentina, but never gave away any information that would allow you to
deduce that. Instead his posts were turgid defenses of some interpretation
of V.3 of Capital, totally isolated from history or politics. Not only
that, he'd write in Marx's "style" with anachronistic phrases imbedded in
long sentences that would have caused the Microsoft grammar-checker to go
up in flames.

I have had all I had to say. I realize now that it is a waste of time to
pursue this topic with you. If others can manage to pin you down, I'd
encourage them to. I have too many other things to deal with that can
advance Marxist thought. Shadow-boxing with abstractions is not one of them.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/





More information about the Marxism mailing list