Hi all,
Will reply shortly, I am completely out of the loop from too much work.
Rakesh wrote:
"But Martin what seems to follow from your analysis is not the need for patience but the need for preventive attacks against Kim Sung Ill's build up of nuclear capabilities. The question that has been put to you is whether you openly affirm the apparent implication of your own analysis. I (as well as others) may be misunderstanding you, so please do clarify what you you think follows from your analysis."
There might be many different implications; I have not yet sorted them all out myself. However, I refuse to believe that the only, or strongest implication, would be the naked acceptance of preemptive strikes. This has in my opinion an ever worse implication, which is unreluctant support for whatever kind of regime. I think this is where we got stuck the last time.
Jerry wrote:
"
There are some comments I'd like to make about what you wrote above
about the media and the state and the relation of nation-states to
imperialism, but I'll respect what I take to be your wish not to
discuss those topics at this time. Perhaps another time? I think
they are important questions for political economy."
I would very much like to hear what you have to say on these topics, however my knowledge here is very shallow so I do not think I can really participate. I spend my whole days in Russian archives, which is great, but my mind does not allow me to focus on so many different topics at one and the same time. I shall try instead to engage in conversation where my marginal contribution is bigger. Please feel free to always comment anything I write; obviously I misread your earlier e-mails in tone and style.
many kind regards,
Martin
Från: OPE-L genom Jerry Levy
Skickat: sö 2007-01-28 04:02
Till: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
Ämne: Re: [OPE-L] North Korea
Media do not necessarily blindly follow the White House, they first and foremost sell news. This is also why I do not think saying "this country is imperialist", and this country "is not" really clarifies much. I think all nation states pursue what could be labeled imperialist strategy; I think it is a contradiction inherent to the nation state per se. If you do not ground your theory of imperialism in the historical settings of nation states, the term "imperialism" simply becomes a term you can label your opponent and it becomes a tautology. But I might be using a foreign terminology here.
I would also like to apologize to other list members that have been drowned in a-mails the last few days. I can personally say I did not wish for this debate to escalate. The other day I decided I would not reply to Jerry and Paul, because the debate wasn't going anywhere. And I also think Jerry and Paul have at times ripped my statements out of their context so to make me look bad. They seem actually to be quite upset. I might be horrible wrong however, I know what electronic debates can be like. If that's the case, I apologize.
===============================================
Martin:
My intent was most certainly not to rip your statements or make you
look bad. If that's the way they sounded to you, then _I_ apologize.
Never throughout this exchange have I been upset with you.
There are some comments I'd like to make about what you wrote above
about the media and the state and the relation of nation-states to
imperialism, but I'll respect what I take to be your wish not to
discuss those topics at this time. Perhaps another time? I think
they are important questions for political economy.
I look forward to your posting on previously unknown materials by
I.I. Rubin.
In solidarity, Jerry