At my homepage www.rolf-martens.com I've added today, under "News with
brief
comments":
Sunday, 06 April 2008 (NWBC 361) A ridiculous attack on the pro-workers
activist Waistline by small-time reactionary "MLL" mob member Charles F.
Moreira
2008-04-06, 21:33 GMT:
I've recently sent the following e-mail - and, it should be added, in that
analysis of what's going on concerning the economic relations in the world
today which comes last in those postings by others which I'm quoting here,
it's
Waistline who's basically right, I hold, while it's wholly unclear what
Charles
F. Moreira really wants to say - what is quite clear is that his
"criticism" of
Waistline's standpoint factually was very wrong, in addition to
misrepresenting
what it was that that writer had said,
[QUOTE:]
From:
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
Sun., 06 April 2008 21:28 GMT
To:
Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Waistline)
Cc:
Charles F. Moreira <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; georgeg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<georgeg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; Jim.Hillier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Jim.Hillier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; Nikogda Nichevo
<intangibles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; S
R <solrde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>; editor_revdem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject:
Re: Lenin, Obama and this stage of capitalism (notes) [+ the reactionary
bull****er Charles F. Moreira]
You of course are quite right in saying, Waistline, as quoted below:
'Slowly but inexorably, "wage slaves of the world unite" is placed on the
agenda.'
And the bull**** of that miserable phony"Marxist" small-time reactionary
swindler - as he very clearly has shown himself to be, quite in particular
in
the last week or so - Charles F. Moreira of Malaysia (formerly of the UK),
a
member too of a quite sinister little international counter-revolutionary
mob
who once more is coming up with a piece of reactionary bull**** dressed
up in
some phony"Marxist" blaha-blaha, so as again to attack you, now with:
"Sounds like some starry eyed, ultra-leftist[!] fantasy of the Spartacist
League[!], some other Trotskyite[!] group or 60s-era liberal idealist[!]
to
me!" [says that miserable Trotskyite Charles F. M. himself, also btw
typically
using that typically bourgeois-bull****, totally ambiguous term
"ultra-leftist"]
- you needn't of course take seriously at all. Your standpoints on various
matters - all of which, as you know, I don't agree with - certainly are
not
those of backstabbing Trotskyism or anything like that at all. The
proposition
that what you wrote "sounded like" such is just another ridiculous
attempt by
that miserable bull****er to smear you. It's your choice of course
whether to
reply directly to that crook or not.
I on my part am not going to do this, except by sending this comment of
mine
also to him and to the other (main) members of his small-time
counter-revolutionary mob, that is, firstly, to those 2 of the 4 other
moberators of the mailing list "MLL" (at
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list)
whose
e-mail
addresses I (think that I) have, i.e. George Gruenthal
<georgeg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
(New York City, the USA - who recently tried to make people believe he
"knew"[!!], as "existing", two of those ridiculous "cyber ghosts" invented
and
managed by the "MLL's" true "strongman" and "chief ideological guru", the
openly-bourgeois reactionary prankster and ex-teacher Thomas P. Murray,
the
USA, somewhat infamous for his hundreds of "ghostwritten" invented
characters
since at least 1997, which would then be 2 out of those 4 members of that
merry Murray family - see some "UNITE! Infos" of mine - the "tough guy"and
"ex-military man" "Question Mark" ("Scott" - "born" on 16.08.2000)
<mn1scott@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, formerly <Hantayo000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, poor "frankenstein580"
<frankied002@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "born" (so unhappily) "in East Harlem", "known in
Chicago" too, and even unhappier "having lost his wife and three-year-old
daughter to [non-existing] 'AIDS', after which he had to go out and live
in a
cabin in the woods for several years", as recounted "with a straight face"
on
"MLL" - whose eyes can remain tearless when being told that "life story"?
-
further "marxist front" <marxistfront@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "in India"[!!],
which/who is
sometimes "a group" and some other times "a person" and in the latter case
called either "Vijay" or else "Pratyush" - "cyber ghosting" is a
difficult
business; you cannot expect even a "specialist" such as Murray to get all
of
his many "ghost stories" completely non-contradictory, of course - and
lastly
that very "radical" though "somewhat ignorant" and inconsistently
"Serb-hating"
chick by the name of "Norma J F Harrison" <normaha@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, "the USA"
-
two out of this four is it that that very bad liar Georgie-****gie "knows
personally"[!!]; he didn't say, which ones - and further, among the "MLL"
moberators, Jim Hillier, UK, who at least used to have
Jim.Hillier@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(To the remaining two mobsters controlling
"MLL" ,
Alan Dover (New Zealand) and Sven Buttler (Germany), I don't have any
e-mail
addresses.)
But they are also being sup****ted rather directly, secondly by two
anonymous
reactionary phony"Marxist" s***bag-type writers who apparently are closely
connected with the Charles F. Moreira part of that mob, namely one
"Nikogda
Nichevo" <intangibles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> who might be based in Canada(?) or
possibly in Scotland(?), as far as I can guess, and who with his ("her"?;
"its"?) - as far as I know - first posting to "MLL", on 20.12.2007 gave me
a
quite good impression (See my Info #301en, of 25.12.2007), which I soon
had to
realize unfortunately was entirely in error, and his ("her"?; "its"?)
obviously
good friend "S R", aka "Joshua" or "Josh", solrde@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and thirdly,
last
but not least, they're being closely sup****ted also by that staunch
adherent of
and propagandist for the formerly existing Soviet social-imperialism,
"editor_revdem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <editor_revdem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, with whom
Charles "Fony Marxist" - the pur****ted "adherent" also "of Mao Zedong",
-apparently is rather closely connected too, since he calls him, the
"Editor
RevDem", by a first name, "Vijay", notwithstanding the fact that that
magazine
of which "Editor" seems to be editor, namely, one called "For
Revolutionary
Democracy", is one which is infamous for its purpose of sup****ting
propagandistically the attempts by certain (at least formerly) relatively
big-time reactionaries at re-establi****ng the already once beaten Soviet
social-imperialism.
Now I've described this reactionary mob with rather many lines in the
above.
Should one be impressed by it?
Not at all, of course. It does howl pretty loudly, at least in that small
corner of the Internet which is one place where it's active, the mailing
list
"MLL" ("population" some 200). But if confronted with even a rather small
group
of actual working people anywhere, its ridiculous antics and its total
isolation in the world (together with those reactionary actually ruling
cliques
whose interests it's trying to serve) will become obvious, as that of a
not too
big scarecrow placed out in an outlying field of - shall we say - opium
poppy,
or something.
I mean, a mob which you don't have to worry much about at all, Waistline,
in
your capacity as (it seems to me at least) an honest longtime
pro-proletariat
activist and writer who's striving to contribute to some progress in the
world.
I shall send this out, to some newsgroups, mailing lists and a number of
individual e-mail addresses (and also put it on to my homepage) as my
"News
with brief comments" item 361. (Sorry I misnumbered my last one, which
contained a suggestion to you, "260". I'm correcting this now to 360.)
Rolf
(Malmö, Sweden
www.rolf-martens.com)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles F. Moreira" <cfm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism"
<marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [MLL] Lenin, Obama and this stage of capitalism (notes)
[Charles Fony "Marxist":]
"Melvin [obviously addressing Waistline]
Clearly it is indeed true that the form of imperialism -- namely direct
colonial domination has changed since the time Lenin wrote Imperialism,
the
Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916.
Latter day communist leaders such as Mao Tse Tung call it neo-colonialism,
where the imperialist power did not domionate and rule directly with
military
force, state apparatus, etc but left control in the hands of well groomed
puppets -- or what Marxist-Leninists refer to a compradore capitalists --
who's
task is to ensure that the imperialist power's or powers' economic and
political interests are protected by this elite stratum of local
capitalist
and other ruling elite who do the dirty work of exploiting and oppressing
their
workers and peasants to serve imperialist interests in return for their
own
enrichment.
That is exactly what happened when Malaya (now Peninsular Malaysia minus
Singa****e) gained independence in 1957. The Communist Party of Malaysia
was the
only group engaged in an armed struggle for independence, while the others
used
negotiation and realising that between losing Malaya politically and
economically to the communist-led movement, the British colonialists
granted
independence to local capitalist groups who ensured that British economic
interests remained in British hands, while they continued suppression of
the
communists and other leftists or radical patriots.
The same happened in Singa****e, where at independence, power was handed
over to
Lee Kuan Yew's People's Action Party -- basically a social democratic
party
which was later thrown out of the Socialist International for a variety of
issues -- roughly involving issues of human rights, worker rights, etc --
which
was too embarrassing for the SI.
The list goes on to include Indonesia' South Vietnam and so on and indeed
yes
-- the nominal independence of former European colonies is partly due to
pressure by the US-imperialists which then could go in and exert their
neo-colonial control through local puppets and dictators.
For example, in Thailand -- which was not officially colonised -- the US
imperialists cultivated and backed the military generals there, to ensure
Thailand -- as a "strategic domino" remained firmly in the US-imperialist
orbit
during the bi-polar Cold War -- and the military brutally suppressed
dissidents.
However, while neo-colonialism is cheaper than direct colonial rule, it's
less
of a guarantee for the imperial powers, especially since like Pinnochio --
puppets can assume a life of their own -- and either serve their own
interests
or pander to the interests of the highest bidder or more lucrative
imperialist.
That's what happened in Malaysia, where in the 70s and 80s, the local
bourgeois
elite Malaysianising especially British-owned interests in the
plantations, the
mines and trading houses while at the same time invited foreign
investments
from around the world, especially from the US and Japan, to set up their
low-skilled industrial assembly activities here and the Malaysian
government
lured them with tax holidays and assurance of not allowing labour unions
in
these factories for a 10 year period and even after that period expired,
the
factory owners, especially the Malaysina-American Electronic Industry
Association representing US-owned multinational semiconductor manufactures
--
twisted the Malaysian governments' arm into only allowing house but not
national unions in the semiconductor assembly industry upon threat of
pulling
their factories out within a year -- causing much unemployment, which
would be
politically difficult for the Malaysna government.
So the government backed down and conceded to their neo-colonial
(new-colonial)
masters and approved only the formation of house unions and while some
house
unions were formed -- they faced much opposition from management and token
sup****t for workers from the Malaysian government but the attempts to form
house-unions in the semiconductor industry soon petered out.
Well now, due to rising costs in Malaysia, the imperialists have moved
their
factories in lower-wage, lower-cost countries such as China and there now
are
re****ts that with costs rising there the next ****ft will be to India and
Vietnam.
Meanwhile, the Malaysian government struggles to move "up the value chain"
to
more knowledge-intensive jobs such as software development, development of
creative multimedia content and applications -- including animation,
computer &
mobile phone application and games and so on, business process outsourcing
--
ie call centres, etc -- all of which require a more highly skilled
workforce
but which usually means a smaller pro****tion of workers can work in --
while
the rest end up in services industries.
I personally am quite doubtful whether such an economic strategy based on
high-tech, high-skilled information industries on the one hand and
low-tech,
low-skilled services industries will provide a decent living wage for most
citizens and from what I can see happening here and from what I read is
happening in the US -- I see what I believe happening instead.
In my job as an technology writer -- I've heard the term "globalisation"
increasingly mentioned by government ministers and heads of ICT companies
in
the 1990s and early 2000s but somewhat to a lesser extent today -- perhaps
because the ill effects of globalisation are being felt, despite the
dazzling
spin put on it by its proponents, spin doctors, syncophantic journalists
and
local op****tunists -- this latter group who're akin to modern-day
compradore
capitalists --seeking to collaborate with the neo-colonial power to enrich
themselves from it.
The proponents of globalisation, free markets and open borders tout the
Internet as having dissolved borders though only virtually -- as a
progressive
writer -- perhaps Samir Amin if I recall right -- pointed out that with
the
Internet -- borders are open 100% to information, about 85% to capital but
zero
percent to people.
Well, we all still need pass****ts and visas to cross borders and work
permits
to work in other countries -- with some exceptions such as the European
Union
or between Australian & New Zealand where citizens of respective member
states
are free to cross borders, reside and work in different member countries.
Now coming to Obama, you wrote:-
[Quoting Waistline:
'The domination of the speculator - speculation, over the world total
capital
is complete. This does not mean that imperialism has vanished from
history. The
imperialism of which Lenin wrote is long gone and dead. The salient
feature of
this stage of capitalism is not monopoly, which Lenin wrote about in
pretty
straight forth terms, but speculation existing more than less outside of
and
often totally disconnected from the material power of production.
The Obama candidacy is seen in this light and expresses a desire by our
imperialist bourgeoisie to offer a representative of speculative capital
acceptable to virtually all segments of globalized capital.
The Obama candidacy is history altering or rather expresses an altered -
****ft
in, history. The Obama candidacy is not simply the novelty of a black man
making a serious bid for President and poised to win, but equivalent to
an
Irish man running for and winning the top office in England or a Korean
national wining top office in Japan or an Algerian winning the top office
in
France.
Here is the specific American version of the politics of globalism in the
flesh.
Everything about the Obama candidacy and campaign is revolutionizing the
political machinery of electoral politics. I watched Obama a couple of
days
ago on "Hardball." He stated that "I have family members that looks like
Margaret Thatcher on one end and Bernie Mac on the other."
This is not a call for integration or an echo of a dead form of
imperialism or
the novelty of a "black man" running for office, but an extremely
sophisticated
attempt at giving globalization its new political superstructure. Margaret
Thatcher = the first modern imperialist power as the British Empire.
Bernie Mac
= the descendant of America's Southern slaves, turned industrial worker,
turned
comedian and millionaire.
As a modern representative of world speculative capital and living
personification of this stage of capitalism, Senator Obama cannot but be
straight forth in a different way. Senator Obama is not a black leader
but a
modern representative of speculative capital writing the agenda for the
world
total social capital. The black leader is a historical characterization -
a
peculiar phenomenon, expressing a relation****p that grew out of the
defeat of
Reconstruction, 90 years of segregation and began unraveling with the
overthrow of Jim Crow and destruction of the market of segregation. The
day of
the black leader was numbered and the number has come up.
Senator Obama is the most modern representative of speculative capital -
(not
simply capital without definition), and the living flesh of this stage
of
bourgeois rule. Senator Obama's candidacy seeks to close a chapter of our
history that has come and gone.'
[Charles Fony "Marxist":]
So OK! Obama is a choice representative of speculative capital -- well
therefore he cannot be serving the interests of the proletariat.
'Slowly but inexorably, "wage slaves of the world unite" is placed on the
agenda.'
Are you advocating that workers of the world should accept the "inexorable
march" of globalisation which dissolves all borders and renders the world
into
a single global, borderless economic, political, cultural, religious,
linguistic entity -- or a sort of "United States of Planet Earth" -- in
which
the contradictions between capitalist and wage slave will intensify --
culminating in a "World Proletarian Socialist Revolution"?
Sounds like some starry eyed, ultra-leftist fantasy of the Spartacist
League,
some other Trotskyite group or 60s-era liberal idealist to me!
Instead, the socialist revolution will be built through Marxist-Leninist
led
opposition to the "inexorable march of globalisation," which requires
building
opposition to it among workers' organisations and people's > associations
in
different parts of the world.
Charles"
---- Original Message -----
From: <Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To: <marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:36 PM
Subject: [MLL] Lenin, Obama and this stage of capitalism (notes)
Globalization refers to something and this something is not the same form
of
capital Lenin spoke of in his Hobson analysis of financial and industrial
capital back in 1916. The imperialism Lenin wrote about (between January
and
June 1916) existed in a world environment with a feudal economic and
political
back drop during the rising curve of the industrial revolution, which had
not
yet peaked.
Lenin's world consisted of distinct colonial relations. In fact Lenin's
"Imperialism" writes about the First World Imperialist War being a fight
to
re-divide an already divided world founded on direct colonial relations.
Lenin wrote:
"Hence, we are living in a peculiar epoch of world colonial policy, which
is
most closely connected with the “latest stage in the development of
capitalism”, with finance capital. For this reason, it is essential first
of
all to deal in greater detail with the facts, in order to ascertain as
exactly
as possible what distinguishes this epoch from those preceding it, and
what
the present situation is. In the first place, two questions of fact arise
here: is an intensification of colonial policy, a sharpening of the
struggle
for colonies, observed precisely in the epoch of finance capital? And
how, in
this respect, is the world divided at the present time?" (Chapter VI.
DIVISION
OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS)
Emerging in a world already divided amongst European colonial powers,
American
financial-industrial imperialism sought to destroy the direct colonial
system,
which tied India to England, Algeria to France, Korea to Japan and gave
meaning
to the sentiment of the imperialist politicians speaking of "our
colonies."
American imperialist politicians spoke eloquently of "the right of nations
to
self determination" or against the direct colonial system and in favor of
a
world order open to their financial interest and instruments.
Lenin of course always demanded concreteness in analysis.
"Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of
capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued
a
colonial policy and practiced imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on
imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental
difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the
most
vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater
Britain.”[5]
"Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is
essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital."
(ibid)
Is imperialism today the same as during the time of Lenin, differing only
in
its expanded quantitative aspects - features? For instance, is
imperialism
today the same as during the time of Lenin only differing in the
expansion of
"monopoly powers?"
Some speak of today's "financial tools" - architecture, as
"monopoly-finance
capital," while on the other hand, a small group of writers refer to this
phase of capital as the domination of speculative capital. Domination of
speculative capital means the distinct interest of these modern
speculators -
profit makers, dictates the political and economic agenda of the world
total
capital and is a framework to view the various clashes within capital and
between capital and wage slaves.
Has imperialism vanished?
Of course not, or rather . . . yes, in the meaning of the form of
imperialism
of which Lenin wrote.
Aspects of the old imperialism will and must persist within globalism in
the
form of highly militarized states. Here our imperialist state - America,
immediately comes to mind. Nevertheless, globalism grew out of and upon
the
basis of (monopoly) financial-industrial imperialism of Lenin's era. By
definition financial-industrial capital (imperialism) is monopoly
(without
quotes) because it emerges into history on the basis of gigantic trusts .
. .
monopoly.
The imperialism of the era of Lenin, which in America arose on the basis
of
the Civil War and the triumph of Wall Street, is long gone. The
imperialism
Lenin wrote about was the ex****t of financial capital as distinct from
the
ex****t of commodities of which Marx wrote about in the Communist
Manifesto.
Marx' and Engels' Communist Manifesto writes directly about the form of
imperialism they encountered and its history:
"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of
production,
by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the
most
barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities
are the
heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which
it
forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to
capitulate.
It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois
mode of
production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into
their
midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a
world
after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It
has
created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as
compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the
population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country
dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian
countries
dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of
bourgeois,
the East on the West." (Communist Manifesto: Bourgeois and Proletarians)
What Marx describes above is the direct colonial system founded on the
ex****t
of commodities - as a battering ram, and with it the founding of the
bourgeois
production relations.
Lenin writes of a different form of Imperialism.
"The ex****t of capital thus becomes a means of encouraging the ex****t of
commodities. In this connection, transactions between particularly big
firms
assume a form which, as Schilder[3] “mildly” puts it, “borders on
corruption”.
Krupp in Germany, Schneider in France, Armstrong in Britain are instances
of
firms which have close connections with powerful banks and governments and
which cannot easily be “ignored” when a loan is being arranged." (Chapter
IV.
EX****T OF CAPITAL)
For Yankee or Wall Street Imperialism this meant the buying up of vast
tracts
of land throughout South America in the 1890's, the establishments of
banks and
loans, and on this basis further imposing the money economy into the
lives of
the less industrially developed areas of the world as the basis for
expanding
the material powers of the imperialist country's productivity
infrastructure.
For the past twenty-five years America experienced what was called in the
1980s de-industrialization or the "ex****t of our jobs" throughout the
world.
This de-industrialization however took place in harmony and connection
with the
growth of a new financial architecture that made gambling - risk
*****sment,
and profit making outside of (disconnected with) the production of
material
things, the new form of motivation of capital. This new form of
motivation of
capital dominates the economic and political agenda of world capital.
Does this means that monopoly no longer exists? Of course not. Lenin
wrote
about monopoly as an attribute of the imperialism of his time.
"The principal feature of the latest stage of capitalism is the
domination of
monopolist associations of big employers. These monopolies are most firmly
established when all the sources of raw materials are captured by one
group,
and we have seen with what zeal the international capitalist associations
exert every effort to deprive their rivals of all op****tunity of
competing, to
buy up, for example, iron fields, oilfields, etc. Colonial possession
alone
gives the monopolies complete guarantee against all contingencies in the
struggle against competitors, including the case of the adversary
wanting to
be protected by a law establi****ng a state monopoly. The more capitalism
is
developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw materials is felt, the
more
intense the competition and the hunt for sources of raw materials
throughout
the whole world, the more desperate the struggle for the acquisition of
colonies." ( Chapter VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS).
Is the principle feature of 2008 capitalism the domination of monopolist
associations of big employers, writing the agenda for world capital? Or
is the
principle feature of this stage of capitalism the domination of
speculators -
using super symbolic means (abstractions), as the instruments of profit
making? One writer to this list pointed out that consumption would have
been
greatly stimulated by giving - loaning, $30 billion to the wages slaves
(and
having all of them default on their loans) rather than Bears Stearns. The
Bear
Stearn collapse comes a little less than a year after Chrysler Motors was
sold
by Daimler to Cerberus Capital Management, a New York equity firm that
specializes in "turning around" troubled companies.
Chrysler Motors - a "holding company," and subsidiary of Cerberus, will
most
certainly still make vehicles, but its profitability is not based in
vehicle
making but rather debt financing. The attractiveness of this debt
financing is
enhanced by sla****ng the wage slave's wages in half, while refinancing
the
debt load.
The domination of the speculator - speculation, over the world total
capital
is complete. This does not mean that imperialism has vanished from
history.
The imperialism of which Lenin wrote is long gone and dead. The salient
feature
of this stage of capitalism is not monopoly, which Lenin wrote about in
pretty
straight forth terms, but speculation existing more than less outside of
and
often totally disconnected from the material power of production.
The Obama candidacy is seen in this light and expresses a desire by our
imperialist bourgeoisie to offer a representative of speculative capital
acceptable to virtually all segments of globalize[d] capital.
The Obama candidacy is history altering or rather expresses an altered -
****ft
in, history. The Obama candidacy is not simply the novelty of a black man
making a serious bid for President and poised to win, but equivalent to
an
Irish m[a]n running for and winning the top office in England or a Korean
national wining top office in Japan or an Algerian winning the top office
in
France.
Here is the specific American version of the politics of globalism in the
flesh.
Everything about the Obama candidacy and campaign is revolutionizing the
political machinery of electoral politics. I watched Obama a couple of
days
ago on "Hardball." He stated that "I have family members that look[s] like
Margaret Thatcher on one end and Bernie Mac on the other."
This is not a call for integration or an echo of a dead form of
imperialism or
the novelty of a "black man" running for office, but an extremely
sophisticated
attempt at giving globalization its new political superstructure. Margaret
Thatcher = the first modern imperialist power as the British Empire.
Bernie Mac
= the descendant of America's Southern slaves, turned industrial worker,
turned
comedian and millionaire.
As a modern representative of world speculative capital and living
personification of this stage of capitalism, Senator Obama cannot but be
straight forth in a different way. Senator Obama is not a black leader
but a
modern representative of speculative capital writing the agenda for the
world
total social capital. The black leader is a historical characterization -
a
peculiar phenomenon, expressing a relation****p that grew out of the
defeat of
Reconstruction, 90 years of segregation and began unraveling with the
overthrow of Jim Crow and destruction of the market of segregation. The
day of
the black leader was numbered and the number has come up.
Senator Obama is the most modern representative of speculative capital -
(not
simply capital without definition), and the living flesh of this stage
of
bourgeois rule. Senator Obama's candidacy seeks to close a chapter of our
history that has come and gone.
Slowly but inexorably, "wage slaves of the world unite" is placed on the
agenda.
WL3
[END OF QUOTE]
_____________________
Message posted by:
Rolf Martens
Malmö, Sweden
Phone and fax:
+46 - 40 - 124832;
rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
