[Marxism] (no subject)

[Gary MacLennan]

I am sorry I didn't inform you before that I was traveling to Africa for a
program called "Empowering Youth to Fight Racism, HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Lack
of Education, this program is taking place in three major countries in
Africa which is Ghana, South Africa and Nigeria.

 I have found myself in a terrible situation as I'm stranded in Nigeria
because I forgot my lil bag in the Taxi where my money, passport, documents
and other valuable things were kept on my way to the Hotel and am  facing a
hard time here because I have no more money with me and right now am owing
the hotel, the bill of $ 1500 and they want me to pay the bill soon or they
are gonna seize my bag and hand me over to the Hotel Management, I need this
help from you urgently to help me back home, all I need from you  is to lend
me the money to pay the hotel bill and I also need $500 to feed and help
myself back home, this is why am sending you this email, please I need you
to lend me $2,000 to have  my problems here solved. I need this help so much
and in time because I am in a terrible and tight situation.

I will really appreciate any amount you can afford to send me if you can't
afford the $2,000 and I promise to pay you back your money as soon as I
return home. Please let me know asap in order for me to forward you the
details you need to send the money to me. I understand for charges, it could
cost some extra to send money through western union, I promise to return all
charges incurred back to you, this is the only way I can receive money down
here.

Hope to read from you soon.

Please


On 10/21/07, Fred Feldman <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> I have to admit that I have been troubled for quite a while by what seems
> to
> me to be the theoretical primitiveness of the discussions on our list of
> whether such and such a "formerly" semicolonial country -- China, Brazil,
> India, Pakistan, Venezuela, South Korea, Taiwan, Venezuela, Mexico,
> Argentina, Chile, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia,
> Ireland, Turkey, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Uganda -- has
> become
> imperialist.
>
> Among semicolonial countries that are experiencing economic development,
> including capitalist development, Cuba, Vietnam, and North Korea tend not
> to
> make the list of imperialist powers.  This is a good thing politically, in
> my view, but I am not sure it is logically consistent from the theoretical
> standpoint being applied -- to the extent there is one.
>
> The standard seems to be that once a capitalist "former" semicolony
> reaches
> a certain level of development, it more or less automatically becomes an
> imperialist power, contending for regional and ultimately world domination
> against the others.  Wars between these "former" semicolonial countries
> and
> the old imperialist powers are inter-imperialist wars.
>
> As I understand Comrade Paula, she reasons that the rise of these new
> imperialist powers poses the main danger of imperialist war today, as they
> rise to challenge the old imperialist powers.  Hence the conflict between
> US
> and Iran becomes a conflict between two mighty imperialist states, one
> rising (Iran) and one in decline (the United States), fighting for
> hegemony
> in the Middle East.  The situation she portrays is a tad like the aging
> "democratic imperialists" challenged by Hitler Germany, Mussolini's Italy,
> and militarist Japan in the 1930s.
>
> As I understand her, Paul warns that we should be alarmed at the
> development
> of these new  imperialist powers and the increasing threat of war they
> pose
> because of their aggressive challenge to the old imperialists, the clash
> between Iran and the US being but one of many examples.
>
> I also think the main danger of war lies in the present or former
> semicolonial regions, though I think the driving force is not the new
> "imperialist" powers, which I don't see as existing. The challenge stems
> from the decline and frustration of the real imperialist powers -- yes,
> the
> usual suspects -- and above all the US.  The US rulers are more and more
> forced to rely on military power as their main instrument and are outraged
> when semicolonies gain thpe muscle to challenge their monopolistic power.
>
> I guess its possible that here and there a war might be avoided if Iran or
> Venmezuela or China or others simply came out with their hands up and went
> along with the program. But I don't place them under suspicion of
> imperialism for not doing so.
>
> I don't think fear and hatred of war are a sufficient justification for
> refusing to take a clear stand on the side of the oppressed natiob against
> the oppressor, and even more they do not justify proclaiming the oppressed
> nation as imperialist because it acts in ways that involve a risk of war
> with the masters of tohe world, whose grip they sense is weakening.
>
> I've always appreciated pacifists' hatred of war, but I have never thought
> that pacifism was a solution to this terrible reality.
>
> Paula, in particular, often refers to Lenin. But neither she nor others
> who
> see imperialism in one or more of these countries has seriously attempted
> to
> show how they fit into Lenin's total picture of imperialism.  Passing
> phrases about "export of capital" or "monopolies," plus criteria not to be
> found there such as "hegemony" and production of manufactured goods are
> substituted for this.
>
> Paula in particular proceeds (at least on this list) as if the burden of
> proof lies exclusively on those who think these countries are still
> semicolonial, even though it is she (among others) who posits that a vast
> and qualitative change has taken place in their political, economic and
> social structures, transforming them from oppressed nations into
> imperialist
> powers contending with the big boys with world domination as the ultimate
> prize.
>
> The common misuse of Lenin's Imperialism, or really the failure to really
> use it at all, and determine where one agrees or disagrees, often starts
> with accepting the common mistranslations of Lenin's subtitle as the
> "Highest stage of imperialism" or the "last stage of imperialism."  He
> actually used the more modest subtitle "latest stage of capitalism." Not
> necessarily last (since that depends on the class struggle and other
> unpredictable developments) and, as anyone who reads the pamphlet
> attentively should notice, definitely not HIGHEST: decaying, rotting,
> parasitic capitalism.  Capitalism in decline.
>
> Lenin does not take the position that imperialism is an advance over the
> previous stage, but tends to foresee something like a long period of
> parasitism-driven war, crisis, and tyranny driven by the parasitic
> requirements. Thus the assumption that any capitalist country or any
> country
> in which capitalism seems to be advancing economically or becoming
> stronger
> relative to the imperialists politically must be imperialist or becoming
> so
> has no necessary basis in Lenin's theory. Iran or China or Venezuela or
> Malaysia cannot be defined as imperialist simply because they have risen
> in
> strength or because they have national or regional interests that they can
> defend against imperialist powers somewhat more effectively than used to
> be
> the case.
>
> And nowhere, of course, does Lenin equate imperialism with "hegemony."
> That's another bit of Maoist jive that has to go, in my opinion.
>
> I think it is worthwhile to review Lenin's criteria for imperialism, from
> page 89 of the oft-reprinted 1939 Intkernational Publishers edition:
>
> And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all
> definitions, which can never include all the concatenations of the
> phenomenon in its complete development, we must give a definition of
> imperialism that will embrace the following five essential features:
>
> 1) The concentration of production and capital developed to such a high
> stage that it created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic
> life
>
>
> 2) The merging of bank capital with industrial capitasl and the creation,
> on
> the basis of "finance capital." Of a "financial oligarchy.
>
> 3. The export of capital which has become extremely important, AS
> DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EXPORT OF COMMODITIES [emphasis mine].
>
> 4.The formation of international capitalist monopolies which share the
> world
> among themselves.
>
> 5.The territorial division of the whole world among the greatest
> capitalist
> powers has been completed.
>
> Imperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the
> domination of monopolies in which the dominance of monopolies and finance
> capital has established itself; in which the division of the world among
> international trusts has begun; in which the division of the whole world
> among the international trusts has begun; in which the division of ail
> territories of the globe among the great powers is completed."
>
> As I said, I have seen no serious attempt to analyze any of these
> countries
> within this overall framework.  This and that example of "export" of
> capital
> or irrelevant assertions like if they produce lots of manufactured goods,
> they have to be imperialist.
>
>
> But I want to take up two points of Lenin's description of the imperialist
> world situation (points 4 and 5 in his numbered list).  It seems to me
> that
> the historical situation  the territorial division of the world between
> the
> great powers and the division of the world among a handful of
> international
> trusts are in a process of breakdown.  The territorial division seems to
> have broken down massively, although the occupation of many African
> countries, South Korea, etc. by a variety of forces, and the continuance
> of
> imperialist protectorates such as Taiwan and the settler-colonial regime
> in
> Israel are still serious factors.
>
> But it seems to me that the domination of the world by a handful of
> international trusts  is also in danger of brealdown -- and it has been
> weakening overall for a long time.
>
> If a country like Iran or Iraq or Venezuela or even Saudi Arabia
> nationalizes the oil industry, I think someone with Paula's framework
> would
> tend to think: "Aha! They have created a monopoly! They are becoming
> imperialist," referring to a fragment of Lenin's definition in the usual
> fashion among thinkers of this bent (and Paula is not alone, including on
> the list).
>
> 'But what these countries did above all was not monopolize but bust a
> trust!
>
> In the late 80s and 90s the imperialists hoped they would reverse this
> trend
> through neoliberalism.  But the trend is again running in the opposite
> direction.
>
> A good case could be made that China today has a form of state monopoly
> capitalism, although I do not think this determines the overall character
> of
> the state or the social relationship or marks the end of the Chinese
> national and people's revolution.  But historically this state monopoly
> capitalism exists because it was ripped from the hands of the imperialist
> powers and international trusts.
>
> The assertion that the world, having been a battleground between a handful
> of imperialist powers, is now a battleground between dozens, scores, or
> hundreds of them (anyplace that has monopolies or exports a lot of goods,
> or
> where you can cite examples of capital export, or which has terrirorial or
> economic aspirations in its region, etc., etc., etc.) is an assertion that
> will need a lot more proof than anyone has tried to provide so far.
>
> I see a situation of imperialist decline, which is presently unfavorable
> to
> the development of new imperialist powers, even if capitalism is not
> abolished worldwide in the near future.
>
> Will another stage of capitalism development take place if imperialism
> continues to break down, "former" or actually former semicolonies gain
> strength?  In any case I think the perspective that the trend is toward
> ever
> more imperialist powers contending for a simply materially unreachable
> world
> domination doesn't seem quite credible to me.
>
> In any case, I still believe that there will be considerably more progress
> toward socialism than toward ever more multipolar imperialism (almost a
> contradiction in terms, in fact) in the coming decades.  Which is part of
> why I remain more optimistic about the future of China than is the current
> norm on the list.
>
> But I don't think that China's economic structure seems to be
> predominantly
> state capitalist proves, as many seem to assume, that its future is
> automatically imperialist.  In fact, I see little sign of genuine
> imperialist development at this point. And I don't see this as inevitable
> even if China retains a state capitalist structure for te foreseeable
> future.
> Fred Feldman
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>