Re: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment

 Dave Z:

I think you avoid to look at the truth as you antecedent to the facts and reason want to justify some sort of social democratism. The facts speak the language of change.

Again, a speculative imagination run loose. I have not laid out any specific political position, but theoretical points that you quite consistently fail to address.

 In what you said up to now I have not seen anything theoretical. It is just a sort of praagmatism to justify your political position on the side of European Left. Nothing else. Or do you realy think that people are so naive to fail to recognise the political position behind your would-be-theory? I do not see anything Marxist dialectic in your appraoch.

D.Göçmen
http://dogangocmen.wordpress.com/
http://www.dogangocmen.blogspot.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Zachariah <davez@kth.se>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Thu, Jan 14, 2010 11:36 am
Subject: Re: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment

2010/1/14 D. Göçmen <dogangoecmen@aol.com>

 I used the term "empire" very consciously in present tense. The time of empires is gone at least since WWI as non of the imperialist countries can rule over the world for a long period of time without being challenged by other imperialist countries.

This is certainly not true, several European states maintained themselves as territorial empires after WWI. De-colonization was a process that accelerated only after WWII.

 You know very well whom I am referring to and I know where you have this term from. Is it not Hardt and Negri who serve you?

These are mere fantasies on your part. I didn't get the term 'empire' from academic fashions but from my relatives who lived under it. My theoretical understanding of its meaning was first formed by a historian, Eric Hobsbawm.

I think you avoid to look at the truth as you antecedent to the facts and reason want to justify some sort of social democratism. The facts speak the language of change.

Again, a speculative imagination run loose. I have not laid out any specific political position, but theoretical points that you quite consistently fail to address.

To come back to the concept of 'empire': it non-sense as it concentrates on one country as an imperialist country.

May I suggest that you consult a dictionary on this? In no way have I suggested that only a *single* empire can exist at one time.

Even if we apparently do not speak the same language, the theoretical issue remains: the victims of British empire on the Indian subcontinent or of French empire in Northern Africa where subject to fundamentally different mechanisms of oppression or exploitation than the oppressed and exploited people of these regions today. The struggles and sacrifices to end the operation of classical territorial empires meant a lot, one should not obscure this fundamental difference.

//Dave Z

 
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Jan 16 05:16:45 2010