From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Re: M-I: US Hegemony
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 18:41:44 -0500 (CDT)


Chris,

	I'm a little confused by this message, as though someone
suddenly came out with a long burst of argument about why don't
we use the roman instead of the cyrillic alphabet or something. I
didn't particularly follow the thread you are responding to, because
the very question seemed tautological. I don't *know* any marxists
who do not conceive of themselves as having as their very essence
the opposition to U.S. imperialism. What is the fuss about?

Carrol

Chris writes:
> 
> I was a bit disappointed by this group of replies, sincere and thoughtful
> though they were, and I could not decide at what level to pitch a response.
> 
> I agree that the processes of globalization are not identical with what
> Lenin described in 1916. I agree that there is a globalisation of the
> middle strata across the world who can run capitalism. I agree that much of
> the agenda of neo-liberalism is to make a level playing field for
> transnationals, the dinaosaurs of our age, who can afford to send far
> larger delegations to world conferences than can many states.
> 
> But. 
> 
> Despite being someone probably often read as lacking revolutionary passion,
> I think we have to show more passion than this. On a list dominated by
> first world, privileged subscribers, we have to be damn sure we are not
> overlooking an invisible oppression by our nations of other nations. 
> 
> We have to be aware that the term "transnational" conceals the reality that
> such bodies have their closest connections with one or two national
> governments. Shell and BP are British imperialism even though Shell may put
> out an independent brochure about what it is doing from the environment of
> the people of the Niger Delta.
> 
> The religious-funded campaigning charities are ahead of us marxists in
> campaigning against the oppression of other countries by our own. It may be
> technical. It may require learning what the Multi-Fibre Agreement is and
> why it is a device favouring US, British and other European imperialisms,
> but we should learn to oppose our own imperialism, if needs be by learning
> from Christians.
> 
> To be content with campaigning only for a revolutionary party and a
> revolution in ones own country without highlighting opposition to the
> oppression by our country of other countries is to tolerate its
> continuation. And I do not think that is an acceptable internationalist
> position.
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Burford
> 
> London.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 01:02 PM 8/7/97 -0400, you wrote:
> >List,
> >
> >Rob makes a fine point, and Stephen Gill has gone a long way in sorting
> >all this out. This is why globalization as a historical phase in the
> >development of capitalism is more intense than imperialism. Chris wonders
> >about some nations exploiting other nations. It was this exploitation
> >under imperialism that permitted the elevation of living standards in the
> >core. With the transnationalization of class structure, exploitation and
> >domination deepens by a deterritorializing of the structure of inequality.
> >Increasingly, inequality is no longer between nations (and between social
> >classes within nations) but between social classes in a global class
> >structure. This doesn't mean that geographically differentiated inequality
> >will evaporate; for example, racialized and gendered social structures
> >persist (for various reasons, but primarily economic) and so regional
> >differences in the allocation of production segments and sectors remain in
> >place. But it does portend an eventual leveling and homogenization of
> >social classes globally. 
> >
> >Andy Austin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



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