[Marxism] Answers to two questions re Colombia

[Live session user]

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:08 -0800, Paula wrote:
> Anthony wrote
> > In brief, my definition of an imperialist country is
> > one which dominates another country or other countries
> > economically and/or militarily.
> 
> I'm afraid it's not as easy as that. What in your view constitutes 
> 'domination'? Do New Zealand, Iceland, Portugal or Switzerland dominate any 
> other countries? Napoleon's France dominated Spain; was France imperialist 
> at the time?

As far as I understand it, all the developed first world countries
benefit, quite directly in most cases, from the operation of
imperialism, even though only a small number of these countries could be
classed as "major" imperialists. Obviously a place like Portugal has a
direct legacy of colonialism - in Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola,
Mozambique etc but it also piggybacks on the major imperialists, as do
the other countries you mention. They don't necessarily "dominate" in
the sense that Anthony implied in what was, I suspect, a kind of
shorthand definition. I've explained before why I define New Zealand as
imperialist in a minor way, and actually it has dominated its Pacific
neighbours at times, including having police and soldiers in various
Pacific countries now. French domination of Spain during the Napoleonic
era took place before the time theorised by Lenin, so it might best be
described as a pre-capitalist form of imperialism. This is not to say
that capitalism wasn't operating in France, but that its form of
imperialism, like that of Rome or the Ottomans, is of a type that
doesn't really equate with a Marxist definition, just as there are all
sorts of exploitation that aren't "capitalist" exploitation.

> > If you argue that any country which has a bourgeoisie
> > which invests in other countries is imperialist, than
> > Colombia is imperialist, and so is the Sudan, and so
> > is every single other country on the planet.
> 
> Perhaps they are. But you are right that foreign investment is not the only 
> relevant factor - so once again we have to be very careful. It's not good 
> enough to assume that Colombia is not imperialist, without presenting any 
> evidence or reasoning.

I'm not sure why you are so determined to throw the label "imperialist"
at so many third world countries. I don't agree with the claim Joaquin
made a while ago to the effect that no third world country, especially a
non-white one, could ever become imperialist, and I do think that some
emerging powers, like China, do some things that demonstrate that they
are moving in that direction, although their success is far from
assured. The current club will move to prevent them if they can.

> Since you mention the Sudan, here is a recent article discussing what is 
> going on in that region of Africa ('Making Sense of Chad', by Alex de Waal, 
> http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/dewaal060208.html).
> 
> De Waal writes about 'a regional competition for dominance through a vast 
> arc of central Africa that has rarely been governed by state authority. 
> This hinterland includes Chad, CAR, and northern DRC, as well as the 
> adjoining areas of Sudan.  As well as Khartoum [Sudan], Tripoli [Libya], 
> Kampala [Uganda], Kinshasa [Democratic Republic of the Congo], Kigali 
> [Rwanda], and even Asmara [Eritrea] are vying for influence across this 
> area.'
> 
> De Waal also argues that 'Post-colonial Sudanese governments are acting in 
> exactly the older tradition of a deep and extended borderland, seeking 
> influence, security, and profit far both within their own remoter provinces 
> and across their national borders.'
> 
> Imperialist nations come in different shapes and sizes, and they have 
> different historical backgrounds. It does seem that Sudan is acting in an 
> imperialist fashion at the regional level. It would be very interesting to 
> know whether Colombia or Venezuela are engaged in a similar process.

To try to label a country like the Sudan - about as dominated by
imperialism as any country in the world right now, or Iran or Venezuela,
staring daily down the barrel of a US intervention, seems to me to
devalue the term. Yes, these countries do exert an influence beyond
their borders, but that's not enough. Are they exporting their
production and capital on a massive scale? Are they extracting masses of
surplus value from other countries? It doesn't strike me that they are.
Far more capital goes into China than goes out. See:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:vmJjrVV0gjsJ:siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCHIINDGLOECO/Resources/TheDomesticFinancialSystemandCapitalFlows-China.pdf+China+capital+flow&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=nz&client=firefox-a

According to that World Bank report, the capital flow into China in 2005
was US$79 billion, and the US investments were earning 19.7%. In
contrast, the capital flow outwards was US$11.3 billion.

Even if these places are investing overseas, or "dominating" their
neighbours, it's a far cry to declare that they are now imperialists,
just like the USA.
Cheers,
John