Sebrof [he/him, comrade/them]

The classic “who put politics in my [insert thing that is inherently political]” American brainworm.

Yeah, Sprites are a form of upper atmospheric lightening which include other phenomena like jets and elves.

I was stoked when I first learned about them. Like a new form of lightning was unlocked.

Thanks for the video link! Watching it now.

And here are some articles from John Smith (author of Capitalism in the 21st Century) where he critiques Harvey’s claim that imperialism is no longer a useful term (an “old category” as he claims) and that China and the developing nations are actually exploiting the developed nations.

David Harvey Denies Imperialism

Imperialist Realities vs the Myths of David Harvey

I don’t even agree fully with Smith’s views on China, he’s more critical than I am, but even Smith lambasts Harvey’s views that imperialism has been reversed and now the poor Westerners suffer at the hands of China.

Harvey’s States the following in his commentary on Prabhat and Utsa Patnaik’s A Theory of Imperialism:

Those of us who think the old categories of imperialism do not work too well in these times do not deny at all the complex flows of value that expand the accumulation of wealth and power in one part of the world at the expense of another. We simply think the flows are more complicated and constantly changing direction. The historical draining of wealth from East to West for more than two centuries, for example, has largely been reversed over the last thirty years

Without showing any data, Harvey throws up his hands, says that “its complicated” and then assures us that it’s actually the developing world that is exploiting us!

And Harvey’s 17 Contradictions and the End of Capitalism doesn’t list imperialism as one of the contradictions. That alone may not be much of an argument against Harvey, thoigh you can be damned sure that I would have listed it as the principal contradiction, of our times. Harvey only mentions imperialism is eight times by name scattered about the text, but he makes his point known when he states

Disparities in the global distribution of wealth and income between countries have been much reduced with rising per capita incomes in many developing parts of the world. The net drain of wealth from East to West that had prevailed for over two centuries has been reversed as East Asia in particular has risen to prominence.

The data doesn’t support Harvey’s claim. Research by Hexbear’s beloved Jason Hickle (no, not Jackson Hinkle) shows:

In 2021, the economies of the global North net-appropriated 826 billion hours of embodied labour from the global South, across all skill levels and sectors.

We find Southern wages are 87–95% lower than Northern wages for work of equal skill. While Southern workers contribute 90% of the labour that powers the world economy, they receive only 21% of global income

I’ve noticed an attempt by academics to reconceptualize imperialism as having roots in The State and not in Capitalism itself (as if the State can be separated from class in the first place)

In addition to Harvey’s abysmal takes on Imperialism, shade has been thrown at him for claiming that Marx didn’t actually have a theory of value. So just throw all that value nonsense out the window according to him.

A criticism by Michael Roberts

And one by Cockshott. Warning that this dude sucks. Big transphobe and thinks there is a CIA plot to push Big Gay. I list him, though, as his blog piece lists multiple sources for empirical evidence of the law of value.

Thanks for the comment! It’s very frustrating when people call themselves “Marxist economists” and then throw out the most fundamental concepts. You have the “no bullshit” Marxists who try to erase dialectics. You have Keynesians or MMTers who stumble upon Marx’s ideas and try to reinvent the wheel. In the most egregious cases you have people trying to reinvent the logic of Marxism with neoclassical concepts.

David Harvey is an interesting academic in that, from what I can gather, he seems to have imperialism flipped on its head - saying that its Global North workers who are actually exploited by the global South. WTF

And of course all of these so called “Marxists” wouldn’t touch revolutionary practice with a ten foot pole.

This is how I see it too. One of the functions of money comes as a store of value, and this is also tied into a Marxist view of value as being a real social relation at play. Beyond money simply having use because its used in taxes, money is an instrument for expressing and mediating value; and value also allows for the reallocation of labor in society - the source of value itself - through the law of value.

People want something that can hold on to its value across both time and space. Sometimes this store of value isn’t money (think houses or famous paintings), but a form of money that acts as a reserve of value is always in need. And money which can serve as an expression of value thanks to the strength of the government (or an enforced tax) may not be seen as a safe storage when trust is shaky. Anwar Shaikh (though be mindful that he is rather anti-MMT) describes this as a flight from more virtual forms of money to forms closer to actual value in moments of crisis, where gold tends to be the (extreme) end-point of that flight.

There is historical trust that at least gold will be seen as something valuable in an unknowable future with unknowable governments and monetary systems. Some may go with beans though. But gold, or some other commodity with a level of acceptance, has value as it’s a product of human labor. So when looking for a store of value some people go with it due to historical legacy and the real value embodied within it. There’s a reason that even national banks are buying gold (amongst other commodities and baskets of currencies) as they dedollarize.

This isnt meant to be a goldbug argument for going back to the gold standard. It is instead a reminder of the existence of value and one of money’s function of a store of value. I’m not (completely) against MMT and think there is a lot to it to learn and that is true and descriptive. But it can’t mask nor cover up value as a real social relation. And most MMT’ers I’ve talked to seem to ignore value. I suspect it is a reflection of the academic training of economists, even MMT academics, to do away with value as a useful or necessary concept, but I cant back that up as I didn’t go to school for economics lol. But even some academic Marxist economists fall for the bourgeoisie temptation of abandoning value.

Starvernomics

deleted by creator

I just completey disagree with your statement that math isn’t dealing in abatractions and isnt rooted in the material world. This is what makes dialectical materialism different from jusrltbvulgar materialism. I dont have the skills to elaborate in any manner that will convince you, I imagine, but the items in math that we hold in our head or express on paper and manipulate are abstractions, mental categories and concepts in our consciousness that are derivative from the material world, and have the shape they do from an initial contact of this natural material world.

And the dialectical aspect means that the material world and the abstractions we make have a never ending dialogue with each other. It may start initially from counting stones, arrows, rocks etc which causes the abstractions of natural numbers, but then the abatractions themselves grow and themselves impact the development and manipulation of matter, and more complicated ans indirect abatractions continue to emerge. But they are always derivative of the material world. Even when you think you are dealing with a purely abatract ideal, its still expressed in consciousness (a derivative of matter) and manipulated via symbols (a material bearer of the abstraction).

I’m not surprised.

I get criticism of academics because of its anti-communism. But not criticism of abatractions and research.

But unfortunately most research is wasted because it lacks Marxist insight. And worse, some are attempts at explanations avoiding any insight into dialectical materialism and hence is an attempt at mystification whether the researchers are conscious of that or not. And math is just another tool of these researchers. But I have seen Marxist focus in on criticism of math.

For the situations I am familiar with, such criticisms say that the math both mystifies and gives legitimacy to work to anti-revolutuonary research. Think of political scientists using statistics. The statistics gives the most whack idealist nonsense you find in a political science paper an aura of truth. And I do agree that math serves as a “mask” for bad ideas. But the solution isn’t to do away with math because math isn’t the cause of this problem. Anti-communism is. Statistics in political science isn’t the issue, its the anti-communism of the field itself.

And for an example like voting models, sure studying voting models without an understanding of class power is a huge theoretical mistake. I’d imagine there is a risk of getting people wasting time on finding the perfect bourgeoisie system where we can vote in socialism.

But studying social structures, and how they are or could be organized (including studying voting models) within the context of a class where its material interests ard dentified as well its relations with other classes, groups, etc., is worthwhile I believe. That is using analytics tools to approach a study of the inter-relations (i.e. inner contradictions) of an organization through a Marxist lens.

If such research better informs the Proletariat in our struggle, then it is a proper Marxist science! But it still involves these abatractions

Dirty bombs? ISIS? Theocrats? Chaos? Sounds perfect for the empire!

Blowback is just another opportunity. Safety is not the goal.

Though in more serious talk, if you believe Ben Norton from Geopolitical Economy Report and the sources therein, the ultimate goal isn’t Safety from nuclear war or dirty bombs. The goal is China. Fracturing Iran into weak states, where a few may be comprador western allies gets us one step closer to the goal of China. A goal that I dont think is viable, but a goal nonetheless.

And this is just my vibe here, but I dont think the architects of the apocalypse give a shit if some Americans die from a dirty bomb. If need be, a hundred American cities could be nuked to glass. Accumulation of their power and control is all that matters.

I see what you mean about believing that Israel is independent is not idealism in itself, but calling idealist is shorthand for the fact that such a view, at least the extreme version of Israel having some complete sovereignty from the US empire, entity doesn’t seem to correspond with a meaningful analysis rooted in imperialism and how the US supports and props up Israel. Israel does have some degree of “independence” in that they are there own actors, but I’d say based off the US propping up Israel for its purposes, that the game theorist YouTube is making a severe error. And he isn’t rooting his analysis in historical materialism, i.e. in an analysis of imperialism, capital accumulation, class power, and value flows. For him, Israel is a nation state hence it is on some independent footing as any other nation state. That is some form of idealism to me. Almost like a mystification of Israel as some independent entity because it is a nation state, instead of focusing on the interrelationships between Israel and the US, and how Israel is both a nation state and an extension of US empire. An analysis starting from material facts on the ground will lead to that vs one that treats Isreal as independent from the start.

But, I may be wrong about the details of this hill I’m standing on. So I won’t die on it, but I think its a hill that’s close to something worthwhile.

Also, an aside on the aside about math. I don’t think math can escape materialism. I think most math people disagree with me on this, Platonism appears very common with mathematician. Even if the abstractions are “ideals” and dont exist in a one-to-one way, I dont see this as invalidating dialectical materialism. Ideas in math are abatractions that, like all abstractions, have their roots in the material world and its historical trajectoey. Every abstractions of ours come from this material world, but this isnt some crude materialist view that says that every abstractions has a direct one-to-one material version of it. But I dont believe even math is some pure idealism, even if it is analysis of abstract, ideal, structures.

But some abstractions are definitely harder to pin down to something real. Utility for example. Maybe it could be a proxy, like fitness in evolutionary systems, for something else more material or having a feedback relationship with something in the material world.

Yeah I wasn’t put off by the guy doing “game theory”, it’s another tool or approach. But the problem is his game theory analysis is not based off historical materialism. His idealism shows through and polluted any analysis and made it cheap. Thinking that Israel is independent of the US and that it will be the US’s military competitor in the region shows that no amount of game theory will correct for idealistic world views.

Your comment reminds me of my own rant I have had in the past. It’s like when Marxists economists disparage math because neoclassicalists use it. Math isn’t the problem, its the base assumptions that bourgeoisie economists have. I’m not even saying that a Marxist analysis requires the same math that neoclassical economists use, but there’s a tendnecy, hopefully minor, to throw the baby out with the bathwater because bourgeoisie academics use math. I havent seen that here in Hexbear, but I have come across it in person.

Understanding the material world and our social relations in a scientific manner will require some math, and some analytical tools. It wont be reduced to math, but math is an indispensable tool in understanding material reality. There is a group of Marxist economists, or at least followers that I have spoken to, that are almost like the econ version of Ultras in that they think any math is some bourgeois perversion and wish to stay in the realm of purely qualitative descriptions. This has gotten a little off topic as this complaint is focused in the “economy” side of political economy analysis

I got suspicious when he talked about Israel for those same reasons - seems to put too much on Israel being an entity independent of the US and almost in competition in West Asia.

You are a silly person

I see this mistake so often with Communist parties in the United States. And you have ’s on Hexbear who repeat it.

This isn’t an inter-imperialist war. The Ukraine War isn’t an inter-imperialist war. Western Communists are good at copying and pasting analysis without doing any thinking of their own. And I can’t tell you how many times Ive heard that the Israeli and Palestinian workers should unite against their “common enemy”, or the Russian and Ukrainian workers should do the same (to fight off Russia, what!?). They lack a materialist analysis and just copy what Lenin said as if what it applies to all situations. They don’t actually understand the principal contradiction of Imperialism. They don’t understand how a more general contradiction can articulate itself in particular contradictions. Hence why they can’t understand that a reactionary theocracy/plutocracy, etc. can play the role of an anti-imperialist. They dont think dialectically. They don’t understand dialectics.

Hell I’ve tried playing their game where you just slam quote after quote, but they cherry pick and close their ears. Convinced that Iran must be destroyed to bring us closer to communism, or Hamas must be crushed to truly free the Palestinain people. Shame.

Lets play the game of quotation. From the big man Stalin himself, in The Foundations of Leninism

Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the “dominant” nations to support - resolutely and actively to support - the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national liberation movement… It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism

And for the part that is hard for liberals masquerading as communists to understand.

This is the position in regard to the question of particular national movements, of the possible reactionary character of these movements - if, of course, they are appraised not from the formal point of view, not from the point of view of abstract rights, but concretely, from the point of view of the interests of the revolutionary movement

And again, the more general contradiction of labor vs capital, proletariat vs bourgeoisie may express itself in particular and concrete ways that may not appear like worker vs capitalist. A contradiction between settler and colonized may not have the apparent form of worker vs capital, but is local expression of this general contradiction. The principal contradiction of imperialism may articulate itself in ways that don’t appear to align with a worker vs capitalism binary. And this lack of basic Marxist knowledge plagues so many groups I’ve encountered. So they becomes clowns with clown ideas. They are lazy bones, as Mao says, who don’t want to study the particulars, and only know to look for "worker vs capitalist* in the most basic, unoriginal, and frankly useless of ways.

To drive the point home with quotes as this type loves to do:

The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible reactionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions imperialist oppression does not necessarily presupposes the existence of proletariat elements in the movement, …, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement.

The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views.

Stalin, who understands dialectics better than these people, are reminding you to inspect concrete reality, and that you can support even a monarchy, if it weakens imperialism.

Understanding dialectics and especially contradictions makes this a no Brainer. Calling for defeat of Iran isn’t some big brained revolutionary defeatist a la inter-imperialist war. It is calling for the defeat of actually existing anti imperialism. It is calling for the victory imperialism because one is too foolish and egotistical to understand otherwise. Sometimes these views come from a childish and impatient understanding of socialism as an era of global transition. Sometimes these people want communism right now and stomp their feet and think that removing the Ayatollah now will bring us one step closer. Or taking out Hamas and the IDF both will do it. Idk fully what goes through the minds of clowns

Imperialist aggression against Iran is how the general contradiction between labor and capital articulate themselves right now at this time and place, i.e. via imperialism. Arguing for Iran’s defeat is to argue for victory of imperialism. Which does not advance the cause for communism.

Trump does have a shock value to him, but a well oiled and competent imperialist machine with democrats at the wheel is just as deadly, if not more. And democrats deport just as many if not more as Trump has. (Deep apologies for the Vox link). But the decorum of the democrats subdues any revolutionary spirit, any rising worker consciousness, and your constant suggestion of the left (whoever exactly that is in the United States) biting the bullet and working with democrats hampers any independent left movement from developing in the United States.

That is advice that confuses many, and it isn’t idealism or purity to suggest that the left has more to lose by working with the dems.

The Communist Party and every non-profit constantly redirects leftist consciousness back to bourgeois electoralism with the Democrats. That isn’t the left marching with the Democrats, that is the Dems smothering any nascent movement in the crib and scattering the ashes as the Dems continue to create the conditions for more fascism. Working with them in the way you suggest isn’t a death sentence - it atrophies our movement. We’ve seen time and time again how the dems almost exist simply to co-opt and redirect movements. If not careful, the democrats absorb all the energy and act as a brake on any independent worker movement developing.

The more the masses see this play out, they even begin to see the dems as unreliable and disconnected from meaningful struggle. When the masses reach that level of consciousness about the two parties, then we don’t want tell them that they are strategically wrong and they need to be led back to Kamala or whomever. You may not understand how important of a development it can be to get Americans to envision anything beyond the two parties.

That does mean the United States is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The dems are a fetter for a left developing in the US, but Trump is a hammer for us (though one that at least radicalizes more Americans). It is true that the left isn’t strong in the United States, but I think you a.) underestimate how damaging the Democrats can be for the left, and b.) overestimate the difference the dems are going to make to stopping fascism.

Though you may say, and I beleve have, that the dems wouldnt stop the fascists, just give the left a few years to build up. But again, working with the dems itself makes it hard for a left to grow and develop independently of a network of bourgeois think tanks and non profits. It’s kicking the can down the road, sure, but without the ability to “train” for what’s to come. So one gains little from that.

I don’t think an analogy you make to China’s history is useful here at all and such an anology isn’t proof enough that the Left should work with the Dems in this moment as the Communists made peace with the KMT. I don’t believe the analology is enough is argue for that position. That stategic playbook of working with the Dems has already been used, we’ve seen the lack of anything it tends to build, and it delays the building of proletariat consciousness and institutions.