From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: Imperialism = main contradiction?
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:20:34 +0800


Saul I appreiciate your comment below on Macdonald's statement about imperialism (which appears to me wrong in detail but not in the main).

The detail I would pick up on, and I think is broadly compatible to what you appear to be hinting at, is to do with what we actually faced with.

Under classic imperialism "the main struggle" internationally was naturally enough national liberation, because the majority of world was enslaved by colonialism and also capitalism contested the world in the form of contending imperial powers. Hence the form of capitalism and anti-imperial struggle more or less coincided.

I hope this makes sense, for I dispute this detail of Macdonald's assesment and need to split some hairs on the issue. First I want to point out the bleeding obvious and get it out the way. With the US throwing its weight around in the most brutal fashion, with its plans emerging as some type of world dictator this is certainly the major international struggle of our era - but is it imperialism?

Lenins imperialism depended on emerging national finance capital using the state as its representative in the struggle to capture parts of the world market - hence imperial struggle had two dimensions both reflected by the distinct stage of the development of capital. One dimension was of course screwing the colonies, semi-colonies and weaker markets,the other dimesnion was struggling against other imperial powers.

You should notice that these two dimensions form a dynamic combination. The struggle between imperial powers also lending itself to being a point of leverage for the victims of imperial plunder.

None of this holds today. In fact the leading forms of capital are not national financial capital, but international capital. Whatever presently exists must reflect this.

What we see at the moment as the main international contradiction of capital is a struggle between two forms of international expression niether of which have much in common with former imperialism.

>From the past emerges a superpower wanting to impose a fascist empire on the earth (it has to be fascist because in order to maintain the superpower as the empire the rule of force rides supreme). Against this is another form of empire, the tendency towards world governement and international law.

Both forms are compatable to international capitalism, the reactionary and progressive being historical products. Imperialism does not help us much at all (the US after all has practically all the markets at its disposal already - it is not fighting to get more imperial leverage, it could get all it wants without fighting, more cheaply with just a little patience and bribery).

Old generals always fight the battles of the previous war. I think much of the left are doing a Colonel Blimp on what is happening.

--- Message Received ---
From: Saul Marsh <saulmail-AT-yahoo.com>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:38:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: AUT: Imperialism = main contradiction?

Bravo, Macdonald.  You're obviously a decent person.   Now, could you
explain in a nutshell how imperialism and not capitalism is the main
contradiction?

Saul

--- Macdonald Stainsby <mstainsby-AT-tao.ca> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Louis Proyect" <lnp3-AT-panix.com>
> 
> >  For some
> > reason, this aut-op-sys mailing list operates on the basis that
> you
> > have to be bought into the whole Negri/Deleuze scene to be
> treated
> > with respect. This is crap, in my opinion.
> 
> It's also false. I've been very blunt here with the fact that I'm a
> Leninist
> (even been called the resident Stalinist on the list, always a
> badge I wear with
> honour, whether dealing with Autonomists, Trotskyists, Anarchists,
> etc...
> Stalinist means your line can't be beaten in normal discourse.
> 
> But I digress from that. The reason I haven't been called every
> name in the
> book, from what I can tell, is simple. I stated at the beginning of
> my sub that
> I was a Leninist but recognised this list ain't- so I asked for
> courtesey since
> I am a guest in their house, Lou.
> 
> Also, if one doesn't recognise that autonomist and anarchist
> approachesd to
> building a movement are working immensely better than Leninism re:
> the
> "anti-globalisation" movement, and that the WEF (which Lou louded
> as a "great
> leap forward") protests were almost completely irrelevant to now.
> What the best
> step *forward* for radicalism is in the wake of 9-11 I do not
> propose to know,
> but I am certain that neither do the reformist Leninists.
> 
> I am dying for a movement that can understand that countries like
> Cuba are worth
> defending, even singing homage to! but that the "Castroists" here
> are full of
> reformist garbage that will get us nowhere. The radical movement in
> North
> America will get nowhere until A) no one is willing to subordinate
> themselves to
> the sell-outs in the hierarcy of "official" labour, and B) they can
> actually
> tell that labels of capitalist (etc) for anti-imperialism serves
> imperialism-
> that imperialism is the main contradiction.
> 
> However, in the current situation, young and/or new radicals should
> do one
> thing: Ignore the paper pushers looking to make a career serving
> John Sweeney
> and the other guardians of capital in workers garb. These turncoats
> (though they
> never turned- they were always bourgeois) have systematically set
> up the radical
> anti-capitalist contingents of the AG movements to take the brunt
> of the
> violence of the state in exchange for "bargaining position"
> (Sweeney has been
> doing this since Seattle `99) such as a meeting with Bill Clinton.
> 
> Old "Leninist" (Lenin had way more guts than this, making his mark
> slaying the
> cowardice of labour leaders in the face of Czarist Russia) strategy
> has been a
> miserable failure. There simply must come a synthesis between the
> attractive
> pole of the new movement- pro-activity and resistance demonstrated
> to give hope-
> and the need for defensive manouevers in the light of the new
> political
> situation of the day. I have not the answer. Attacking my comrades
> in this
> movement, however, is not even the question- unless one is
> personally satisfied
> with being "correct" rather than, well, relevant...
> 
> Macdonald
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


====
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/)
* Powerful filters.
* Create you own headers.
* Have email types launch scripts.
* Use emails to automat your work.
* Add comments on receive.
* Use scripts to extract and check emails.
* Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions.
* LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX.
* A REXX interpreter is freely available.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________



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