From: Adam Rose <Adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: M-I: RE: Cuba, Zaire and inter-imperialist rivalry
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:40:06 -0000



[Adam Rose]  
Louis P writes:
I cite this in the context of the exchange between Will and Adam over 
Lenin's article on imperialism and its relevance to the current world
situation.

Frankly, I am not sure to what degree inter-imperialist rivalries are 
beginning to govern world politics today, now that the Cold War is over.

[Adam Rose]  A big subject, this. I'll reply to Louis by explaining why 
I disagree with Richard Bos, who wrote:

[Richard Bos]  
> Yes it is true that the maintainance of the nation state is important
> for the survival of some capitalists, but for the really big players it
> is just a hinderance. They couldn't give a fig for all the smaller
> companies. They have gone beyond seeing themselves as equal partners to
> the nation states whose budgets they often rival. They are fighting to
> control global markets and populations.

[Adam Rose] 
I think Richard is wrong about this. The nation state is not a hindrance
to Ford, Nissan, LG, or Fujitsu, all of whom have major investments in
Britain. It is absolutely vital to them, not just from the point of view
of
subsidies, but also because the nation state provides all the long term
infrastructure necessary for production to take place : roads,
education,
police, etc. Production is now integrated over national boundaries, in a
way that it wasn't in Lenin's time or in the 30's. But the flip side to
this
is that each individual investment is bigger. This means that the
infrastructure and support required from the nation state around each
individual investment is that much greater. The units of capital expand,
breaking the bounds of each nation state. At the same time, capital
comes to rely on the nation state even more to create the conditions
in which production can take place. Also, each unit of capital relies on
its "home" state to look out for its interests abroad. Precisely because
the units of capital have outgrown the bounds of the nation state, they
have to rely on ther home nation state to help them break in to
"foreign"
markets, and to defend their own markets against attack. There are ( at
least ) two tendencies which sometimes contradict but also complement
each other : towards the internationalisation of capital and towards the
interpenetration of state + capital. Both these tendencies flow from the
increased size of the units of capital and are equally "rational" from
the
point of view of capital.

I think the continued importance of the nation state explains why
Imperialist
countries continue to intervene in places where there is no economic or
strategic interest, like Britain in Nothern Ireland or the US and France
in Rwanda. The partition of Ireland had, in the 20's, an economic basis
:
the South was economically backward, the North a fully integrated,
industrialised, and profitable part of the British Empire. This is no
longer the
case. As John Major said : "Britain has no economic or strategic
interest
in staying in Nothern Ireland". They continue to spend billions
intervening
in these places because the nation state is absolutely crucial to
today's
capitalism, and if they did not intervene, the nation states concerned
might no longer be able to guarantee the conditions necessary to enable
the continued accumulation of capital. So, the US and France don't
give a shit for Rwanda. But they are worried about the mines in S.E.
Zaire. Britain doesn't want Ulster ( except for some temporary
parliamentary
reasons ) but it will only withdraw if it can guarantee stability in
Britain
and Ireland. This is different to Lenin's analysis of Imperialism in his
time,
where he attributes far more directly economic motives ( correctly, at
the
time ) to Imperialism.


Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
Britain.




>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---