Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:45:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Saul Marsh <saulmail-AT-yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: Imperialism = main contradiction?


I disagree that the "main struggle" has ever been "national
liberation."  National liberation means siding with one nation-state
against another.  Rather, the main struggle has always been to
overcome all states and create borderless, classless society. 
Nation-states are inherently anti-communist, because they enforce
class-collaboration (ie, capitalism).  Further, all nation-states are
imperialist in their nature.  Just following a broad dictionary
definition of imperialism, "the extension or imposition of power,
authority, or influence [of one state over another]" is clearly every
state's foreign policy.  

I think Marx was quite wrong on the national question.  He advocated,
among other things, not only a unified Germany, but that once
unified, it should immediately attack the Russian Empire.  The
sources of Leninist anti-imperialist pro-nationalism are clearly in
Marx, but this didn't stop Rosa Luxemburg, et al from denouncing all
national politics (in the Junius Pamphlet).  

Anti-imperialism is the path of least resistance of struggles inside
weak nation-states or colonies, but it's a dead-end.  The struggle to
create a state is never revolutionary unless by "state" you mean the
self-organized proletariat and not a hierarchical body that coerces
work out of people, even if its not through commodity production
(though it has been, generally).  


--- Greg Schofield <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
> 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 ---


====

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/


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