[Marxism] China's high speed rail plans

XxxxXxxx XxYyXxx xxxxxxx99 at xxxxxxx.xxx
Wed Sep 2 23:29:15 MDT 2009

Nestor wrote: “No seas pelotudo XxxxXxxx”--->approx. "don't be a jerk Leonardo", but depending on the tone it could be meant truly maliciously, why, it is what it is...
Despacito Nestor…

I made a claim: saying that the CCP uses capitalism to build socialism prima facie implies that there is a consciousness outside of capitalism, or for that matter, any mode of production, which may wield it to its will. That this has nothing to do with Marx is clear, but perhaps reading (sorry "re-reading" section 1.4, chapter 1: 'the fetishism of commodities') might help refresh. I’m unaware if this is the ultimate gist of your argument, since I haven’t yet seen anything to the contrary in your comments, that’s what I take your proposition to mean. If this is not the case, then you’re most welcome to stick to your own advice: 'lower the gears' and explain.

For indeed, I am sure you would not want anyone to think that starting from this idealist inversion one ought to conclude that every process of capital accumulation which takes concrete shape in its nation-state form has, in essence, the power to span the general production of commodities by putting in action the productive capacity which corresponds to the valorization of capital, 'the' subject which begets the development of the forces of production (today). This belief immediately translates to the myth that if this or that national economy doesn't attain its "full development", that can only be due to a "deformity", some internal "perversion", the "failure" of economic policy, or the barriers imposed on it by other external national processes of accumulation. In short, it would translate to an <<apologetic of capitalism>> because it cannot see that the full deployment of the global essence of the accumulation process is realized in the necessity of the concrete form of differentiated national spheres. This it is, since it ascribes the capitalist mode of production potentialities which it can never have. 
But, pray, what kind of "pelotudo" like me dares contest the theoretician's authority? The question remains though, if it be so easy to dismiss this argument as "pelotudez" why not then do it with full force?, after all, the public could surmise out of this that Nestor is dodging the question...and wouldn't that be pure blasphemy?
Get back to school stuff for them and cashback for you.

More information about the Marxism mailing list