littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is a very bizarre list. Many Jamaicans, for instance, had to wait for Michael Manley's socialist government in the 1970s before they were given access to electricity.KeyboardJockey said:
What has anti-imperialism ever achieved?
- Thread starter durruti02
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I just have an issue with offering someone 'solidarity' simply on the basis that they are fighting an offending presence, irrespective of their own poltical stance, which is little different from American's supporting a dodgy government because 'They might be bastards but they're our bastards', or the whole enemies enemy business.
Fine if you want to do it, but don't be surprised when someone who is less politically sophisticated asks 'But hang on, you're left wing and therefore a supporter of lots of progressive politics, so why are you supporting a group with regressive social policies and/or ideas simply because they're anti-imperialist?'
A bit like Chavez, the workers champion, cozying up to that well known supporter of trade unions, Iran...which pissed loads of people in his party off whom he then expelled!
Fine if you want to do it, but don't be surprised when someone who is less politically sophisticated asks 'But hang on, you're left wing and therefore a supporter of lots of progressive politics, so why are you supporting a group with regressive social policies and/or ideas simply because they're anti-imperialist?'
A bit like Chavez, the workers champion, cozying up to that well known supporter of trade unions, Iran...which pissed loads of people in his party off whom he then expelled!
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is rather naive. Given the hostility towards him of the economic collossus to the north, Chavez needs friends to survive. Just as, once the US had rejected him, Castro had little choice but to turn to the USSR in 1961.kyser_soze said:
You seem to interpret pointing out this kind of thing as being a 'cheerleader' for these particular regimes, so I shall quickly point out that, having lived in Castro's Cuba, I am well aware of its nature and I am not a fan. That will not stop me from criticising the injustices that are inflicted on Cuba from abroad.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
What annoyed me about the Hizb thread was that those selfsame people happy to welcome an anti-imperialist from an organisation with some seriously unsavory views about social issues were the same ones banging on about how outrageous it was allowing Griffin and Irving to speak at the OU debate. I mean I can see the *logic* of it, but I think that there are better reasons to give a platform to someone then 'They're anti-imperialists'.
True, but the USSR had more in common with Castro than a theocracy has with a socialist government, wouldn't you say?
True, but the USSR had more in common with Castro than a theocracy has with a socialist government, wouldn't you say?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, probably. But remember that Fidel was no communist initially. His brother Raul was, and so were others around him, but Fidel was first and foremost a Cuban nationalist.kyser_soze said:
It's hard to overestimate the difficulty caused to a Latin American country by hostility from the US. Not only do you lose trade with the US, but pressure is put on other Latin American countries not to cooperate with you either. In terms of realpolitik, it does make a lot of sense to stay friends with a fellow oil producer who has also fallen foul of US foreign policy.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah, but the US hasn't stopped buying Venezualan oil has it? His cozying up to the Iranians was international grandstanding, not an act of considered FP, which is why it pissed a lot of his party off.
I'm neutral on Chavez overall, tending toward the 'wait and see' group, so I'm not 'getting' at him because I think he's a dictator, I just think given his commitment to human rights at home and the conspicuous lack of them in Iran (or at least the lack of them for homosexuals, women caught with their fiancé on a bench etc) is no different to the US cozying up to A.N.Other Nasty Bastard...
I mean I'm all for realpolitick in FP...
I'm neutral on Chavez overall, tending toward the 'wait and see' group, so I'm not 'getting' at him because I think he's a dictator, I just think given his commitment to human rights at home and the conspicuous lack of them in Iran (or at least the lack of them for homosexuals, women caught with their fiancé on a bench etc) is no different to the US cozying up to A.N.Other Nasty Bastard...
I mean I'm all for realpolitick in FP...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't like the fact that he has cosied up to Iran either. I, like another naive dreamer, the late Robin Cook, believe that all countries should pursue ethical foreign policies.kyser_soze said:
Having said that, there is a difference, and it is one of your relation to power. Chavez was temporarily overthrown in a coup that was funded and actively supported by a particular powerful country. In such circumstances, he becomes pally with another regime that is beyond the pale for the same powerful country.
It's not the same. The US is the most powerful country in the world. Venezuela is governed by a man the most powerful country in the world tried to overthrow. You can't use the same set of standards for the two.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Anyone want to say what they understand by anti-imperialism?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Quite. The comparison is a specious one not just because of what it says but because of what it leaves out.Spion said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Spion said:
OK, specious comparison, I retract it...altho I won't cheat and go edit it out...
Spion
I hear ya
OK, here's a rough out . . . . Movements of people in colonies, former colonies, underdeveloped countries fighting against the influence of the 'great powers' politically and in many cases economicaly in their countries.butchersapron said:
It's a pretty broad thing, IMO.
It's also inherently not revolutionary, in the same way as fighting against racism, for womens' rights etc isn't. But, like them, IMO, it's a reform that socialists should fight for alongside people, while also saying, 'if you want to be free of the oppression of this powerful foreign state then organising workers in alliance with the peasantry is the most effective way.'
I'm in no way suggesting that workers' organisations in countries fighting imperialism should suppress criticism of reactionary anti-imperialist leaders.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
A good definition.Spion said:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Spion said:
So for you it's not the leninist thing mentioned earlier. It's just people fighting big powers from outside their 'own' state. Isn't that so vague as to be meaningless though? What's the concrete content? Is it countries doing the fighting? Is it classes?
Spion
I hear ya
Lenin attempted to develop theory on the way the developed capitalist powers exploited the less developed countries, did he not? So, no, it's not the same thing as 'an anti-imperialist struggle', in the same way as Marx's Capital is not the same as trade unionism.butchersapron said:
What's your definition?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Spion said:
I don't get your point. You're a trot. The trot idea of AI is substantially as i describe above and derived from Lenin's populariation of Hobson and Bukharin, and was crucially not about the way the developed capitalist powers exploited the less developed countries, but about how the capitalist countries competed with each other and the entry into a final stage of capitalism -a period in which no reforms could be offered the working class, or in which there was no room for expansion. As i said earlier, a laughably outdated theory.
You seem to have another understanding.
My definition - i don't have a positive one. The term is meaningless in 2007.
Spion
I hear ya
All of that adresses only Lenin's ideas, rather than manifestations of anti-imperialism.butchersapron said:
And as regards the theory I wouldn't write if off so quickly without examining the ways the major powers relate to the less developed world in economic terms.
If Lenin's theory is outdated at what point in history did this occur and how?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Spion said:
What does that even mean? Anti-imperialism is a tag that you've put on other peoples actions surely?
Yes, i've addreesed Lenin's ideas and asked you to outline where you disagree.
I've already done that. Do you think capitalism is in an irrversible epoch of decline in which it can no longer expand, or no longer offer the working class meaningful refoms? That's the central point and the keystone of the theory. It's wrong. It's madly wrong. It's, laughably wrong with the opening up of the half the world to market imperatives and wage labour. That's the central strut gone. Loyalty to dogma be damned - look at the fucking world as it is. Saying that the rich and powerful rip off the poor isn't imperialsm - it's capitalism, it's exploitation. It's what it does.
Imperialism in the leninist terms is a systemic requirement that leads to either world war or world wide proletarian revolution. It's a joke.
Soul On Ice
Well-Known Member
belboid said:
Indeed. One of my favourite Jeremy Hardy jokes is "where ever you look in the world where there is an internal struggle in a country between 2 or more groups of people, an Edwardian pillar box is usually to be found somewhere nearby." So bloody true that one.
Spion
I hear ya
butchersapron said:
Here's Lenin's chapter headings. I think it gives a clue to what he was on about . . .
I. CONCENTRATION OF PRODUCTION AND MONOPOLIES 196
II. BANKS AND THEIR NEW ROLE 210
III. FINANCE CAPITAL AND THE FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY 226
IV. EXPORT OF CAPITAL 240
V. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS 246
VI. DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG THE GREAT POWERS 254
VII. IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM 265
VIII. PARASITISM AND DECAY OF CAPITALISM 276
IX. CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM 285
X. THE PLACE OF IMPERIALISM IN HISTORY 298
As I understand it imperialism is not just capitalism but the expansion of capitalism beyond the boundaries of the nation state, of its maturing as an *international* system. I also understand Lenin to have meant that it can no longer expand in the sense that it could release the productive forces from older social systems. In that sense capitalism is moribund.
It seems to me that you haven't addressed the essence of what L was saying. Now he might be wrong in terms of not being able to witness the intensive (rather than extensive) expansion of capitalism, but he was spot on with his analysis of imperialism as a new, global form of capitalism, with all the implications that come with that.
Anyway, thanks for re-sparking my interest in that. I may well re-read it over Xmas.
Sounds like a fair description of the 20thC to me. And may of this one too, probablybutchersapron said:
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are you defending it or not? Just bits of it? What?
And no, it was a reading of the international system that was entirely nation based, it was about the fusing of capital with states. It's the exact opposite of capital becoming international and free of states as you argue is happening. So i don't think i need address those points based on that misreading at this time.
Is it a fair descreiption of the 21st century (anever mind the 20th). Capital has plenty of room to expand. It's doing so right now. Neither world war or proletarian revolution are on the agendad. Don't be mad.
And no, it was a reading of the international system that was entirely nation based, it was about the fusing of capital with states. It's the exact opposite of capital becoming international and free of states as you argue is happening. So i don't think i need address those points based on that misreading at this time.
Is it a fair descreiption of the 21st century (anever mind the 20th). Capital has plenty of room to expand. It's doing so right now. Neither world war or proletarian revolution are on the agendad. Don't be mad.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What a fantastic joke. Thanks for lighting up the thread!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Spion said:
What's wrong with it? I've pointed out what i think is the central flaw and how you've read the thing back to front ( an absolutely orthodox reading of the textbtw ) and how that this reading is based on old conditions that no longer obtain. I can sense you backing away already but hey, it's your argument.
Maybe, just maybe lenin's argument that Imperialism led to INTER-STATE competition really meant that states were becoming increasingly unimportant.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Spion said:
What do you think that this means? Have you ever really read the thing? He calls the present system dead and decaying, no longer expanding and unable to produce meaningful reforms with which it can buy off the upper layers of the western w/c, it has reached the state whereby the means of productiion have outgrown the productive relations, the classic marxist period of revolution -the old system in this reading is capitalism. Again, this is an entirely orthodox reading. Where's your's came from?
sorry for as very rushed and vague OP
ok anti imperialism is on differerent levels - in countries UNDER imperialism it is the movements against i.e. mugabe/PIRA/INLA/etc
while i have my criticisms of these they were clearly fo their time and while i would argue as always a workerist line that was not whaty i was ....
actually thinking of .. but instead the anti imp movements in the imperialist countries TOM/NSC/STWC that sort of thing ..
what i always find so ironic is that here in the heart of the beast it seems so obvious that the only struggle is to take power here .. all other struggles are irrelevent
and equally that imperialism was superseded by globalised capitalism many decades ago ..
teh anti imps fidn it easier to deal with bad countries rather than a total system that needs dealing with
ok anti imperialism is on differerent levels - in countries UNDER imperialism it is the movements against i.e. mugabe/PIRA/INLA/etc
while i have my criticisms of these they were clearly fo their time and while i would argue as always a workerist line that was not whaty i was ....
actually thinking of .. but instead the anti imp movements in the imperialist countries TOM/NSC/STWC that sort of thing ..
what i always find so ironic is that here in the heart of the beast it seems so obvious that the only struggle is to take power here .. all other struggles are irrelevent
and equally that imperialism was superseded by globalised capitalism many decades ago ..
teh anti imps fidn it easier to deal with bad countries rather than a total system that needs dealing with
yep soz see update .. rushed OPurbanrevolt said:
but the point here is that what DID it acheive for those people? anti imperialism does NOT confront capital .. people in former colonies have replaced imperialism with submission to global capital ..
anti imperialism is teh stalinist stages theory .. deal with empire befire dealing with capital .. imho opinion this is wrong .
Similar threads
- Poll
