Date: 08 Jul 96 14:06:19 EDT
From: "Jos. Green" <73532.1325-AT-compuserve.com>
Subject: Det 115: Neil vs. the theory of imperialism


To:   All
From: Joseph Green
July 8, 1996
Detroit #115

              Neil's denial of the Leninist view of imperialism

     How does Neil reply to the charge that denial of the right to self-
determination puts him in line with Stalinism on the national question? He 
replies with lies and abuse. If Neil's denial of the right to self-
determination is Stalinism in theory, his method of abuse is Stalinism in 
practice. Odd as it may seem, he has arrived there by the path of "left 
communism".
     As to theory, Neil's main point is that capitalism allegedly stopped 
growing in 1900 or 1914, and now is only developing "at a snail's pace". This 
view shows Neil's inability to deal with the actual facts about the world. It 
also shows that he is completely under the spell of the bourgeois standpoint 
that poverty and misery only arise because capitalism isn't growing fast 
enough.
     Moreover, Neil reveals that he doesn't have the faintest idea of the 
Marxist theory of the transformation of competitive capitalism into monopoly 
capitalism or imperialism. He talks of whether capitalism is "ascendant", 
rather than realizing that the growth of monopoly was the key feature bringing 
on imperialism. As well, he seems to be nostalgic for the old capitalism, and 
he writes in a confused way that I have attacked the view that "capitalism, 
once an ascendant system of social relations has--since about 1900 and World 
War I--become a decadent & reactionary system." Neil, I hold that capitalism 
was an exploitative system from the day of its birth. I also agree with the 
workers' parties and groups in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the U.S., 
and other countries who held that the next revolution in their country should 
be a socialist revolution--and did so decades prior to the rise of 
imperialism. 
     Also it is notable that Neil, who on July 5 held that the key 
transformation in capitalism took place in 1900, and contrasted the 19th 
century to the 20th century, began vacillating within twenty-four hours. 
Apparently he now isn't sure that capitalism became reactionary and decadent 
until World War I (1914-1918). No doubt the exact date in which monopoly 
capitalism became a world system is a bit indefinite. But when Neil thinks it 
might be as late as World War I, it is somewhat amusing, as World War I 
actually sprang from years of contradictions engendered by imperialism. 
Imperialism didn't just spring up on the day war was declared.
     And Neil barely mentions such a crucial theoretical point as: how can one 
relegate the Marxist principle of the right to self-determination to only the 
pre-1900 period? Neil's entire view of analyzing historical conditions is 
simply to divide the world between two periods: before and after 1900 (or 
before and after World War I, or maybe before 1900 and after 1914 with 1900-
1914 left in a limbo). This is a parody of Marxist analysis, and no matter how 
much he insists otherwise, it has nothing to do with the Leninist analysis of 
the effect of monopoly on capitalism, which was that world capitalism--while 
remaining capitalism and subject to the principles described by Marx--had 
developed to an imperialist stage. As we shall see, when Neil tries to develop 
his concept theoretically, he becomes an apologist for "ascendant" capitalism 
prior to 1900 (or 1914), just as he is apologist for imperialist oppression of 
whole peoples after 1900 (or 1914).
 
                        Is there exploitation and war
                     in capitalism's "ascendant" period?

     Neil believes that it proves that capitalism isn't "ascendant" anymore if 
he lists its crimes in the 20th century. This polemic by Neil only makes sense 
if he believes that capitalism didn't have these crimes in its "ascendant 
stage". And this belief prettifies the capitalism of earlier centuries. Neil's 
view is a total negation of Marxism, which shows that capitalism rapes the 
world in its infancy, in its adolescence, and in its old-age. Here's Marx 
describing what Neil calls the "ascendant" period of capitalism:
     "The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpation, 
enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal population, the 
beginning of the conquest and looting of the East Indies, the turning of 
Africa into a warren for the commercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the 
rosy dawn of the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings are 
the chief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their heels treads the 
commercial war of the European nations, with the globe for a theater. [What, a 
global conflict prior to the 20th century? Neil will have apoplexy.--JG.] It 
begins with the revolt of the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions 
in England's anti-jacobin war, and is still going on in the opium wars against 
China, &c." (Capital, Ch XXXI. "Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist")
     Neil has forgotten all this. While Marx uses bitter irony in describing 
the "idyllic" nature of the "rosy dawn" of capitalism, Neil implies that 
"ascendant capitalism" really was idyllic, with super-high growth rates, and 
little of the mass misery of today.
     Neil relates a few statistics about how much of the world is in poverty 
in the 20th century, and about the crimes of capitalism today. But the same 
Neil is insensitive to poverty prior to 1900. Would Neil care to remember the 
state of the indigenous peoples of the entire "New World" after the European 
colonialists ravaged them? Or is Neil too much of a socialist-colonialist to 
recall the horrors of the old-style colonialism or to worry about the 
sufferings of subject peoples? Capitalism meant ravishing the people both 
before and after 1900.
     Neil tells us that in the 20th century there is "mass poverty, alienation 
and misery...even in the advanced capitals". Would Neil care to remember the 
facts brought out by Engels' book "The Condition of the Working Class in 
England" with respect to the most advanced capitalist country of the time, the 
famed "workshop of the world", Britain, in the mid-19th century, the period of 
its global supremacy in industry? Would he care to remember Marx's "Inaugural 
Address" to the First International where he points out that "the worst of the 
convicted criminals, the penal serfs of England and Scotland, toiled much less 
and fared far better than the agricultural laborers of England and Scotland"? 
Capitalism meant vicious exploitation both before and after 1900. 

                           Religion and capitalism
    
     Neil's prettification of "ascendant" capitalism is also seen in his 
discussion of religion in his July 5 message. He tells us that "for a time the 
bourgeois fought it out with the reaction with feudalism/mainly Catholicism in 
capital's `ascendant period' up to about 1900. But the bourgeois, in their 
present period of decadence have made peace with the catholic church and the 
other churches/religions,..."
     According to Neil, how does one tell what the bourgeoisie's attitude to 
religion was? It simply a matter of whether it was before or after 1900. This 
is an example of how Neil has replaced materialist analysis with a wretched, 
mindless phrase repeated over and over.
    And that's not how the materialist Engels' looked at it. Engels related 
the issue to the relation of the particular bourgeois class to the proletariat 
below it, and to the other exploiters that used to be above it. Hence 1900 
wasn't the key date. For example, Engels described how the British bourgeoisie 
stuck to religion, and how the French and German bourgeoisie--faced with the 
rise of a rebellious working class--turned to religion to have a way of 
pacifying the workers. All this happened before the 20th century (which Engels 
never lived to see). He writes: "one by one, the [bourgeois] scoffers turned 
pious in outward behavior, spoke with respect of the Church, its dogmas and 
rites, and even conformed with the latter as far as could not be 
helped....They had come to grief with materialism. `Die Religion muss dem Volk 
erhalten werden,'--religion must be kept alive for the people--that was the 
only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for 
themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to 
break up religion forever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie 
to sneer and to say: `Why, you fools, I could have told you that two hundred 
years ago'!" (Near the end of Engels' "Special Introduction to the English 
Edition of 1892" of "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific")

                             Does capitalism grow
                              under imperialism?

     But the key point in Neil's theory is that capitalism all but stopped 
growing--this is what Neil holds is supposedly the dividing line between 
"ascendant capitalism" and the 20th century. Leninism points to the role of 
monopoly as the key issue changing capitalism, while Neil points to whether 
capitalism is growing. Neil's harebrained theory has nothing to do with 
Marxist analysis. 
     So Neil's claims that capitalism grew in the 20th century "at a snail's 
pace when compared to the growth rates of the 19th Century." This is what he 
means when he says capitalism is "decadent". He talks of "showing the world 
imperialist system to be decadent" by exhibiting that it grows "at a snail's 
pace" and that there is "mass poverty, alienation and misery..." I have 
already dealt with the view that mass poverty is solely a characteristic of 
the 20th century. Now let's examine the issue of growth--the pillar of his 
analysis.
    And the pillar of Neil's analysis, the view that capitalism is hardly 
growing, is absurd. I hereby challenge Neil to provide any statistics to back 
up his claim. The fact that Neil makes this claim shows that he just invents 
facts from his head. His feet are in the 20th century, but his head is in a 
utopian, anti-Marxist fantasy. Neil, with a loyalty that deserves a better 
cause, is trying to rationalize the views of his ideological mentors that 
capitalism stopped growing in the 20th century. He can't quite get himself to 
repeat the views of his "left communist" friends that capitalism totally 
stopped growing--that's too absurd. Indeed, his friends like Jock Daborn also 
twist and turn when pressed on this point. So Neil says, well, ah, er, it's 
just barely growing. Why, economic life is so-o-o-o-o slow in the 20th 
century.
     This means that Neil has a bourgeois view of economics that has little to 
do with Marxism. He equates "ascendant" capitalism with high growth rates, and 
high growth rates with prosperity. There is poverty today, so he thinks that 
there isn't any growth. It escapes him that capitalist growth (as well as 
capitalist stagnation) can impoverish the masses. For example, Mexico lost 
self-sufficiency in agriculture and saw the devastation of millions of 
toilers, not because capitalism grew at a snail's pace in Mexico, but because 
capitalism developed rapidly in Mexico in the post-World War II period. In 
general, around the world there has been a feverish pace of economic change at 
various periods in the 20th century, but Neil sees only a "snail's pace". 
     Moreover, Neil not only idealizes what happened in the industrially 
advanced countries of the 19th century, but once again Neil has unconsciously 
written out of world history the hundreds and hundreds of millions of people 
whose economies barely entered into capitalist relations until the 20th 
century. No one would talk about the high growth rates of these countries in 
the 19th century, so Neil just pushes their people out of history altogether. 
Neil, the socialist-colonialist, is imitating the "Eurocentrism" and 
chauvinism of the ordinary imperialist-colonialists.
     Meanwhile Lenin--who actually examined what imperialism says and thus 
fought the Neil's and "left communists" of his time on the right to self-
determination and other issues related to imperialism--also pointed out that 
capitalism was, overall, GROWING MORE RAPIDLY in its imperialist stage than 
before. He wrote in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", that "On 
the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before; but this growth 
is not only becoming  more and more uneven in general, its unevenness also 
manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are 
richest in capital (Britain)." (Ch. X) (2) It is the tremendous conflicts and 
smashups and wars and economic busts created by this uneven development that 
are among the most profound features of imperialism. Neil is actually slurring 
over the most devastating features of imperialism when he denies the growth of 
capitalism in the 20th century. It seems Neil just can't emancipate himself 
>from the view of the capitalist bosses that everything bad springs from a lack 
of growth, and reach the level of Marxism which shows that capitalism, whether 
growing or stagnating, is a source of misery.

                               Imperialism and
                             national oppression

     Meanwhile Neil continues to denounce national liberation. He is shocked 
at the thought that any national liberation movement "of this epoch" was 
"progressive". He blames the independence of the former colonies for the 
crimes of the local capitalist ruling classes and of world capitalism. The 
would-be radical Neil is just falling in with the neo-conservative atmosphere 
of today.
     One of Neil's arguments against the right to self-determination is the 
view that, if one supports any struggle for national liberation, it means 
becoming an apologist for the local bourgeoisie. That is not the way Marxism--
which shows how to advance the independent organization of the proletariat 
even as the proletariat participates in revolutionary movements of all types 
and through this participation--deals with bourgeois-democratic movements, but 
that's Neil's way. But if Neil thinks that to support a struggle for natioanl 
liberation necessarily means fervent support of the local bourgeoisie of the 
oppressed country, then what must Neil's opposition to "separatism" mean (1)? 
By the same token, it would mean fervent support for the larger and stronger 
bourgeoisie of the oppressor country. Neil can't have it both ways. If support 
for national liberation necessarily means becoming a defender of the local 
bourgeoisie (which Marxism denies), then opposition to national liberation 
necessarily means becoming a defender of the oppressor bourgeoisie. If Neil's 
logic is right, it would mean that he has, out of fear of supporting the 
African and Asian bourgeoisie, become an ideological supporter of the 
American, West European and Japanese bourgeoisie.
     And indeed, Neil's socialist-colonialism results in his leaving out some 
of the bloody crimes of capitalism in the 20th century. 20th century 
imperialism was known for its colonial wars, its savagery against subject 
peoples, and for the staunch resistance of the subject peoples. This indeed is 
one of the main reasons why it is called "imperialism". Leninism put a 
spotlight on these issues and sought to build an alliance between the 
proletarian movement for socialism and the anti-colonial revolt. Neil however 
believes that the height of wisdom is to preach against "separatism", and he 
denounces Lenin's view on anti-colonialism as "national socialism".
     So Neil leaves out the long list of death and suffering resulting from 
the denial of the right to self-determination.  Shall we recall:
     * the American war of aggression against the Vietnamese and Indochinese 
people;
     * the Soviet and American interventions into Afghanistan;
     * the war of the late Ethiopian Dergue against the Eritrean people and 
the other subject nationalities in Ethiopia;
     * the Japanese annexation of Korea and invasion of China and of other 
Asian countries as well;
     * the wretched conditions in which many peoples lived under colonialism, 
not just poverty but also denial of the most basic human rights;
     * the brutal Indonesian suppression of East Timor and of West New Guinea; 
     * the long series of colonial wars to suppress the independence movements 
of much of the world; 
     * the bloodshed spearheaded by the Serbian state-capitalist bourgeoisie's 
denial of the right to self-determination to the other peoples of the former 
Yugoslavia (which was aggravated by the denial of national rights to 
minorities by the Croatian and other bourgeoisies).
     * etc., etc., etc. 
     In fact, Neil's theorizing against the right to self-determination 
results in smothering the indignation against these crimes. Yet imperialism 
has been particularly noted for its intensification of national oppression. If 
the analysis of an imperialist stage of capitalism means anything at all, it 
should make one more sensitive to national oppression. And such an analysis 
would also hit hard at Stalinism and Soviet revisionism in general, which 
built an imperialist empire under a "socialist" signboard. Yet Neil would hold 
that the right to self-determination is particularly outdated under 
imperialism! And by doing so, he is providing a "left communist" rationale for 
not just Western imperialism, but also for revisionist suppression of national 
freedom. 

                            "Ascendant capitalism"

     Neil characterizes the change in capitalism around 1900 as whether it is 
"ascendant" or not. In his July 6 message, he regards "ascendant" capitalism 
as growing capitalism. But if that's the definition, then capitalism is still 
"ascendant". If "ascendant" means "dominant" (as is one of its dictionary 
definitions), then surely capitalism is still dominant in the world. If 
"ascendant" means rising as a new social system, with the capitalists becoming 
dominant over the former exploiters (as opposed to just growing in size and 
extent), then capitalism ceased being "ascendant" in the industrialized 
countries of the time long before imperialism. (Lenin, discussing Europe in 
general, held that the overall rise of the bourgeoisie ended in 1871 and was 
followed by a period of its full domination and decline. He also noted that 
taking 1871 as the end of the general rise of the European bourgeoisie was a 
commonplace in socialist literature. See "Under a False Flag", 1915, Collected 
Works, vol. 21, p. 146.) If "ascendant" means thoroughly transforming the 
economy of various countries, then capitalism continued being "ascendant" in 
various parts of the world throughout the 20th century.
     Neil's talk of "ascendant" capitalism is a complete muddle. He doesn't 
know what he means, and he doesn't care. His use of the term isn't Marxist 
analysis, but an alternative to Marxist analysis and serious thought. 
     If one examines Lenin's definition of imperialism, one will find it is 
quite different from Neil's. When Lenin has to simplify the analysis of 
imperialism to one point, he points to monopoly. And Lenin's emphasis on 
monopoly, and on the world relations of domination and subordination that 
exist under monopoly capitalism, remains a key to understanding the world 
situation.
     At the same time, the world has changed quite a bit since Lenin's death. 
Capitalism remains monopoly capitalism, or imperialism. But it continues to 
evolve. One of the tasks of serious revolutionary theoreticians is to get a 
picture of what world imperialism looks like today. The analysis of the 
imperialism of the early 20th century has to be supplemented by new 
developments, although I think an intelligent restudy of Lenin's theory in the 
light of new developments is quite useful for this.
     Neil doesn't see the need for Marxism or Leninism at all, because he is 
satisfied with the idea that there was "ascendant" capitalism before 1900 and 
it stopped growing after 1900. That's all he has to know. It doesn't orient 
him to new thought. As I showed in earlier writings on the issue of national 
self-determination, Neil has consciously rejected Leninism and denounces it as 
a source of Stalinism and "national socialism". He maintains a certain lip-
service to Marxism, but only by throwing away most Marxist analysis as only 
suitable to the 19th century and "ascendant" capitalism.  

                      Neil vs. serious theoretical work

     Neil doesn't make a careful study of how capitalism is developing. That 
is why he can be content with blunders like that capitalism is developing at a 
snail's pace. He has an even easier way to solve the question than theoretical 
thought. Whenever he is challenged on his ideas, he simply tries to overwhelm 
his opponents with abuse. It's just like how the Soviet revisionists tried to 
present everyone who exposed them as state-capitalists as being CIA agents or 
other degenerates. 
     So Neil says we shouldn't look too closely at the theoretical issues. 
Instead, the important thing, according to Neil, is that I and the late 
Marxist-Leninist Party were guilty of a variety of sins, from supporting Pol 
Pot to never repudiating Albania. What a crock! In fact, it's Neil who has yet 
to repudiate the ongoing apology for Cuban state-capitalism by his one-time 
allies, the Chicago Workers' Voice group. It's Neil who advocated--the last 
time he addressed the issue--that there isn't yet a sufficient theoretical 
basis for the condemnation of Cuban revisionism. Cuba is a burning issue 
today, and Neil and the CWV are betraying the proletariat on the issue of 
Cuban revisionism and Castroism. 
     But let's ask Neil another question. If the party really did all these 
things you say it did, Neil, then why did you, Neil, join it? You didn't join 
it on the spur of the moment, but only after years and years of reading its 
paper, the Workers' Advocate, and carefully studying it and comparing the 
MLP's views with those of other groups. Were you attracted by all those things 
which you claim the Party did? Were you a supporter of Pol Pot? Were you an 
enthusiast for state capitalism?  Did you believe that it's fine to apologize 
for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people, if only the count didn't 
reach into the millions? Why did you stay in such a horrible cesspool until it 
dissolved, and even lament that dissolution? Either you aren't telling the 
truth about what you found in MLP literature back in the days when you were 
reading it, or else it must be that you liked these bad stands. Why, you must 
be a long-time Maoist-Stalinist-"national socialist" yourself, Neil. Or else, 
Neil, could it be that your picture of the MLP is as much of a fantasy as your 
picture of the "snail's growth" of 20th century capitalism? 

NOTES:

   (1) In other articles, Neil has put forward his view that the task is to 
fight "separatism". This includes his article on Yugoslavia in the Chicago 
Workers Voice Theoretical Issue #9, Jan. 29, 1996. See page 10.
   (2) Lenin's view on capitalist growth and its unevenness has been confirmed 
by world developments throughout the 20th century. The rise of some capitalist 
countries and the tendency to decay of the ones richest in capital has 
continued (America is a striking example of such decay). And growth rates near 
10% a year achieved by some countries (Japan, South Korea, China, etc.) for a 
time in the post-World War II period put to shame the general figures 
registered by Germany and other especially favored countries in their race to 
industrialize in the latter 19th century. Meanwhile some other countries have 
achieved growth rates that would have been respectable in the 19th century, 
and yet keep falling behind in the latter 20th century. It's not just the 
stagnating countries that are in trouble! The rapid pace of economic life has 
actually increased the differences between rich and poor, and made life more 
difficult. This illustrates that talking of "snail's pace" growth actually 
hides the profound contradictions of imperialism.  
    Aside from the issue of growth of the GDP, there is the question of the 
structure of the economy. Even various countries which are struggling to keep 
up have seen a rapid transformation of their economic system, the on-going 
elimination of the peasantry, the explosive growth of urbanization, etc. Some 
of the most impoverished areas of the world are in Africa, areas having a hard 
time lifting their heads in the world economic system, and yet the overall 
transformation of Africa on bourgeois lines has been remarkably rapid. Of 
course, it is also another example of how capitalist transformation can bring 
misery and devastation. But it's Neil who implicity equates fast capitalist 
development and prosperity in his theorizing on "ascendant" capitalism.  <>





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