the weakening of one imperial power strengthens another

[bailey_187]

Can our Left Communist friends please explain this idea to me.

Also could the Trots, ML, Maoists etc who disagree argue against it, and the Left Comms defend it?

thank you

[Revolutionair]

If one imperial power has a monopoly on violence, he is able to export trade to all countries. If there are 2 competing imperial powers, they have to fight each other for the market. Being in control of the market means money. (with market I mean the people of the world who you can sell to)

[Widerstand]

It's not necessarily true, but it's not necessarily false.

When an imperial power loses power, this could either because the nations it had power over got free of it's grasp, or because another imperial power rose to an equal economic/military strength.

If two imperial powers struggle with each other, I'd think it's always the case that one being weakened leads to a direct or indirect strengthening (increase of influence) of the other.

[HEAD ICE]

Woooo I think my signature got noticed.

If we look through history, we can see many examples of this actually happening. The most obvious example would be the shift in Britain's role as the chief imperial power to that of the one today, the United States.

Theoretically, it doesn't have to be one imperialist power. If one disintegrates or gets weakened, it could be replaced by a bloc of states.

In this epoch of capitalism, every nation state has a drive to imperialism. Imperialism shouldn't just be considered as a matter of foreign policy, but as a phase of capitalism as well. Capitalism requires nation states to scour the earth for resources to extract and new labor to exploit. This is why when people talk of national liberation as a way to "weaken" an imperialist power, it has little substance. Even if it is weakened, the nature of capitalism and the exploitation and oppression that is associated with it will not change.

What supporters of national "liberation" really are endorsing is the graduation of an "oppressed" nation to that of an oppressor nation. That is however using the language and terms of supporters of the concept of national liberation, because to speak of "oppressor nations" in the imperialist phase of capitalism is redundant. All nations are oppressor nations. No bourgeoisie is progressive. No national liberation movement will end the suffering of capitalist exploitation.

Even if a foreign bourgeoisie is driven out via a national liberation struggle, the new nation state will be required, like all nation states, to ally itself with one major imperialist power. Even if it isn't exploited via colonialism or whatever, it's allegiance with one of the imperialist blocks strengthens it, so even if national oppression appears to be gone in one state, it's economic and often military allegience has worsened it somewhere else.

That of course is taking the best possible scenario and is from the standpoint of supporters of national liberation. In my view national liberation has been a monumental failure in ending national oppression. Africa right now is just as exploited as it has ever been, and the conflicts there that are exacerbated by international corporations and national rivalries has brought the level of brutality to new heights.

So even if one imperialist power is weakened, another will take it's place. That is because the nature of capitalism hasn't changed.

And another, yes, even the smallest tiniest countries have a drive to imperialism. Even a hypothetical Palestinian state has the drive to imperialism. To prove this we don't have to look any further than the tiny country of Rwanda. Rwanda's chief export is coffee, but it is one of the most vicious and brutal imperialist states today. Rwanda's economic and military allegience with the United States has allowed this tiny speck on the map to exacerbate the most brutal conflict on the earth today, the war in the Congo. The extraction of minerals being in the hands of American corporations has turned the tiny Rwanda into one of the biggest butchers in the world today.

One last point, just because a nation state has to ally itself with an imperialist power by necessity doesn't make it any less reactionary. Not one bit.

[Dimentio]

Can our Left Communist friends please explain this idea to me.

Also could the Trots, ML, Maoists etc who disagree argue against it, and the Left Comms defend it?

thank you

WW1 built up the foundations for the USA to become a world power, not because it grew in strength, but because Britain, France, Germany and Russia all were weakened.

[Widerstand]

WW1 built up the foundations for the USA to become a world power, not because it grew in strength, but because Britain, France, Germany and Russia all were weakened.

Likewise did the fall of the Soviet Union put the USA in a position as the sole superpower.

inb4 "soviet union not imperialist"

[Zanthorus]

Stagger Lee said most of what needs to be said. The example of Weimar Germany is also a particularly good one although slightly atypical. After the versailles treaty many on the Left regarded Germany as the victim of Western Imperialism and supported them against the West (After 1922 there was also the added factor of the military alliance between Germany and the Soviet Union). One brilliant example is the 'Schlageter Line' of the KPD announced by Karl Radek by which the KPD was supposed to pander to German Nationalist sentiments in order to get 'the masses' on their side. However even the British Labour party was firing off rhetoric about the 'imperialist war end[ing] with imperialist peace'. I don't think I need to draw a diagram of how that one turned out.

For the record, Lenin's argument against this argument was that it was 'Imperialist Economism', that is to say, the national struggle was an issue of political democracy, and Communists should fight for political democracy at all junctions. The obvious counter would be that autonomy is not the same thing as democracy.

[Psy]

Even if a foreign bourgeoisie is driven out via a national liberation struggle, the new nation state will be required, like all nation states, to ally itself with one major imperialist power. Even if it isn't exploited via colonialism or whatever, it's allegiance with one of the imperialist blocks strengthens it, so even if national oppression appears to be gone in one state, it's economic and often military allegience has worsened it somewhere else.

That of course is taking the best possible scenario and is from the standpoint of supporters of national liberation. In my view national liberation has been a monumental failure in ending national oppression. Africa right now is just as exploited as it has ever been, and the conflicts there that are exacerbated by international corporations and national rivalries has brought the level of brutality to new heights.

What about Imperial Japan, I would think that would be the best possible scenario from the stand point of nationalists as you have the oppressed nation becoming its own imperial block. I don't see how France, Britain and the USA oppressed imperial Japan other then through direct military confrontation, eventual occupation and turning them into a client state (yet the latter two happen later), rather the Japanese ruling class was able to gain a temporary monopoly in exploiting those in its spear of influence.

[Kiev Communard]

It if not necessarily to happen, and actually depends on the international development into question. While the replacement of USA with China as the top imperialist nation, for instance, would not lead to the fall of imperialism itself, the ensuing temporary chaos of internationals system's restructuring could create suitable circumstances for the revolutionary socialist movement to arise and challenge both the old and new structures of domination before they have time to coalesce into a new configuration. But the feasibility of this depends on too many factors to predict such an outcome with any kind of certainty.

[ComradeOm]

For an interesting look at this geopolitical game of musical chairs throughout history, check out Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of Great Powers. Its by no means Marxist but it is driven by a very materialist analysis

[robbo203]

In this epoch of capitalism, every nation state has a drive to imperialism. Imperialism shouldn't just be considered as a matter of foreign policy, but as a phase of capitalism as well. Capitalism requires nation states to scour the earth for resources to extract and new labor to exploit. This is why when people talk of national liberation as a way to "weaken" an imperialist power, it has little substance. Even if it is weakened, the nature of capitalism and the exploitation and oppression that is associated with it will not change.

What supporters of national "liberation" really are endorsing is the graduation of an "oppressed" nation to that of an oppressor nation. That is however using the language and terms of supporters of the concept of national liberation, because to speak of "oppressor nations" in the imperialist phase of capitalism is redundant. All nations are oppressor nations. No bourgeoisie is progressive. No national liberation movement will end the suffering of capitalist exploitation. .


A very good point. I question the utlity of even using the concept of imperialism (or for that matter, anti-imperialism) in our era of global capitalism. To call some countries imperialist is to imply that others are intrisically not. That is false. All countries are latently imperialist but some are more manifestly imperialist than others. If the anti-imperialist struggle were ever to hypothetically suceed it would simply pave the way for new imperialist powers to come up on the outside lane while all eyes are focussed on the front runners

[Sixiang]

A very good point. I question the utlity of even using the concept of imperialism (or for that matter, anti-imperialism) in our era of global capitalism. To call some countries imperialist is to imply that others are intrisically not. That is false. All countries are latently imperialist but some are more manifestly imperialist than others. If the anti-imperialist struggle were ever to hypothetically suceed it would simply pave the way for new imperialist powers to come up on the outside lane while all eyes are focussed on the front runners

Absolutely. Stagger Lee pretty much killed it, as they say.

[gorillafuck]

inb4 "soviet union not imperialist"
It traded at rates that were beneficial to it's trading partners and it did not have domestic capitalists exploiting the wealth of other nations. So yeah, it wasn't....

[The Douche]

Is the arguement based on the idea that nations are somehow intrinsically "driven" to imperialist methods?

For instance, if the occupation was driven out of Afghanistan it would immediately set out to increase its sphere of influence, and take over new markets?

How is say, Cuba, imperialist?

[Fulanito de Tal]

Woooo I think my signature got noticed.

If we look through history, we can see many examples of this actually happening. The most obvious example would be the shift in Britain's role as the chief imperial power to that of the one today, the United States.

Theoretically, it doesn't have to be one imperialist power. If one disintegrates or gets weakened, it could be replaced by a bloc of states.

In this epoch of capitalism, every nation state has a drive to imperialism. Imperialism shouldn't just be considered as a matter of foreign policy, but as a phase of capitalism as well. Capitalism requires nation states to scour the earth for resources to extract and new labor to exploit. This is why when people talk of national liberation as a way to "weaken" an imperialist power, it has little substance. Even if it is weakened, the nature of capitalism and the exploitation and oppression that is associated with it will not change.

What supporters of national "liberation" really are endorsing is the graduation of an "oppressed" nation to that of an oppressor nation. That is however using the language and terms of supporters of the concept of national liberation, because to speak of "oppressor nations" in the imperialist phase of capitalism is redundant. All nations are oppressor nations. No bourgeoisie is progressive. No national liberation movement will end the suffering of capitalist exploitation.

Even if a foreign bourgeoisie is driven out via a national liberation struggle, the new nation state will be required, like all nation states, to ally itself with one major imperialist power. Even if it isn't exploited via colonialism or whatever, it's allegiance with one of the imperialist blocks strengthens it, so even if national oppression appears to be gone in one state, it's economic and often military allegience has worsened it somewhere else.

That of course is taking the best possible scenario and is from the standpoint of supporters of national liberation. In my view national liberation has been a monumental failure in ending national oppression. Africa right now is just as exploited as it has ever been, and the conflicts there that are exacerbated by international corporations and national rivalries has brought the level of brutality to new heights.

So even if one imperialist power is weakened, another will take it's place. That is because the nature of capitalism hasn't changed.

And another, yes, even the smallest tiniest countries have a drive to imperialism. Even a hypothetical Palestinian state has the drive to imperialism. To prove this we don't have to look any further than the tiny country of Rwanda. Rwanda's chief export is coffee, but it is one of the most vicious and brutal imperialist states today. Rwanda's economic and military allegience with the United States has allowed this tiny speck on the map to exacerbate the most brutal conflict on the earth today, the war in the Congo. The extraction of minerals being in the hands of American corporations has turned the tiny Rwanda into one of the biggest butchers in the world today.

One last point, just because a nation state has to ally itself with an imperialist power by necessity doesn't make it any less reactionary. Not one bit.

I enjoyed your post. Please discuss Cuba.

[Sixiang]

So basically imperial power is like the problems of capitalism: it doesn't go away, it just gets moved to different places. It's like oppressive musical chairs.

[Broletariat]

It's like oppressive musical chairs.
Best analogy ever

[Lyev]

I was gonna start another new thread for this regarding Luxemburg's imperialism, but I think it's adequate here: Have we come to somewhat of an impasse where accumulation is hindered by a saturation of (finance?) capital in the world market? According to Luxemburg's conception of imperialism, it is, as most Marxists would agree, something inherent in capitalism (unlike Kautsky's 'ultra-imperialism', where expansion is a choice for the ruling class, out of a myriad of other policy choices). As their wages are less than the value created by their labour, workers cannot buy back all the commodities they produce. And the ruling class cannot buy enough back either, because they must devote at least some surplus value to the reproduction of capital. This is why capitalism must constantly expand outside bourgeois society, outside capitalist social relations, into a non-capitalist strata.

However, my question is, does this "non-capitalist strata" (I think Luxemburg discusses this in The Accumulation of Capital), exist much anymore? It seems imperialism has this tendency, having gained hegemony over a region or country, to then move onto to fresher markets leaving the previously imperialised region relatively industrialised - does it not create new proletarians? This happens a lot where industrial capital is exported from more developed countries in the west, to China, Africa, Latin America etc. So now is the slogan 'socialism or barbarism' more pertinent than ever? From what I understand, this "non-capitalist strata" scarcely exists anymore. There is a CPGB video on permanent revolution where Mike McNair says that the only place in the world where capitalist social relations are not the dominant ones is in Afghanistan (which might explain why US imperialism lead the invasion there in 2001).