From: "commie00" <commie00-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: national question... Re: AUT: Reply to Harald, 7th Iteration
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 04:53:15 -0400


> I would say that imperialism is inherent to capitalism and always has
been, in that we have national capitalist classes, some of whom are stonger
than others,

this seems to me to be the heart of yer statement, which everything else
seems to rest on, so i'll deal with it.

i think this view is lacking in historical concreteness. that is: within
these "national ruling classes" have often existed relatively antagonistic
ruling classes... yet these ruling classes have found ways to combine their
strengths (and weaknesses, luckily for us) into unified bodies.

sometimes this has been done thru imperalist domination within these
"national ruling classes", and sometimes thru the federalization of
differing ruling classes.

the question here is: within globalization, what is happening? and i think
answering this questions requires first a look at history:

imperialist domination has often been very messy and costly for the would-be
imperialists, even when they succeed, in terms of fellow-capitalist
opposition (thru nationalism), resistance from the "super-exploited" in the
imperalized region, etc.

contrary to this, federalization has often been relatively clean for them,
with some of the added bonuses being: intra-capitalist cooperation, an
illusion of democracy to decompose working class power, etc.

this can even be seen within capitalist-governing forms which have
replicated these kinds of structures: fascist and totalitarian governing
forms continuously fail due to internal and external (to the ruling class)
opposition, while federalist (and similar) structures have (relatively)
thrived due to the lack of interal opposition and a ready-made decomposing
(esp. thru recuperation) tool in the form of "democracy".

knowing all of this, it seems highly illogical, from a stratigic point of
view, that the ruling class would choose to maintain imperialistic forms
since they are constantly in crisis from within due to intra-capitalist
opposition.

this is carried out when we analyize the structures of the wto, un, imf /
wb, etc. and look at the trajectory they openly wish to go in.

does this mean that the issue of stronger and weaker local ruling classes
will disappear? no. stronger and weaker ruling classes exist within
historically federated ruling classes (such as in the u.s.), but this has
not stopped these ruling classes from operating as a class (thru the state
or whatnot) in opposition to working class power.

and given the ruling class power / working class decomposition is never
"complete" due to class struggle, these structures do not have to be
complete for them to operate. that is: empire does not have to be perfect in
any way, shape or form to operate as empire. the ruling class just needs to
act as a class on a global scale against the working class thru structures
created for this purpose. and i think it is clear that this is happening,
and has been happening since the 1940s.

as to whether or not empire's structures are dominated by any particular
national ruling class (like the u.s. ruling class) or group of national
ruling classes (like the g8 or nato), my answer would be that, historically,
empire has been initiated and defended by such groups but two major things
have undermined this hegemony:

1) the federalist philosophy inherent to neo-liberalism that gives the
"third world" ruling classes justification for demanding some sembalance of
equality within the organs of empire;

2) the realization, and continued realization, of those demands within the
organs of empire.

could empire fall apart tomorrow? yes. but so could the u.s. government, but
this doesn't mean that the u.s. government is not real and not a real threat
to the working class.

and so to the rest of what you said (from "there are many diminsions..."
on): i pretty much agree with you, and think it is perfectly reasonable to
understand these in light of empire. the exploitation of national chauvanism
and priviledging of certain sections of the working class are useful to
empire just as they have been useful to all forms of capitalism: they
decompose the working class.

that is: the existance of the exploitation of national chauvanism or the
privilideing of certain sections of the working class does not mean that
imperialism exists if the local ruling classes are fully participating, as
parts of empire, in maintaining this stuff.

as a quick note: a friend from south america recently pointed out to me that
local ruling classes often encourage the view of the u.s. as an imperialist
power. her reasoning behind this: to mask the fact that they are
participating in neoliberalism. "pointing fingures with one hand, while
sucker punching with the other" is how she put it. i've not been able to
develop this for myself very much, but its something i sort of instinctively
agree with and can see. decomposition has often included capitalism
recuperating out-moded theories and forms that people are accustomed to...
such as unions or leninist theories of revolution. and what better way to
hide your own activities then to have a ready-made scapgoat handed to you by
those you wish to control and oppress.

wheee....



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---