Anti-Imperialism

[soso17]

Hello all-
Recently, I've noticed some negative commentary regarding anti-imperialism, from dismissal of to contempt for these ideas. What's up with that? I feel that anti-imperialism is one of the main forces of Marxism. Did Lenin himself not call imperialism "the highest stage of capitalism"? These discussions seem to take place quite often in regards to Syria, Iran, DPRK, Libya, really anyplace where Western/US/NATO "intervention" has/is/will be taking place.

How can such an important concept be dismissed? Isn't US hegemony one of the greatest threats to the socialist movement, especially for colonial and neo-colonial/"third world" nations?

--soso

[Narcissus]

I think the problem arises when people think that Fuck the US=Go DPRK

[l'Enfermé]

The problem is that self-proclaimed "anti-imps" are usually using this label to disguise their vulgar anti-Americanism and ardent support and admiration for third world dictatorships.

And don't bring Lenin or even Stalin into this, Lenin's "imperialism" and the "imperialism" of anti-imps are completely different things.

[soso17]

And don't bring Lenin or even Stalin into this, Lenin's "imperialism" and the "imperialism" of anti-imps are completely different things.

In what way(s)? I'm truly looking to further my understanding of this, so if you could break it down for me, perhaps with some sources, I'd really appreciate it.

--soso

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Don't confuse defending the national bourgeoisie of a nation state with anti-imperialism. Just because the competition over resources and labour by national bourgeoisie is now ridiculously one-sided, with the cultural and political hegemony of the United States being paramount, doesn't mean that it still isn't just a struggle between capitalists.

[soso17]

But don't the people of said nations deserve to rule their own country without interference (i.e. self determination)? I am absolutely against the US intervening in the affairs of others, whether it's in a "peace-keeping" or "human rights" capacity or not.

[Red Banana]

As said before, some self proclaimed "anti-imperialists" equate opposing imperal aggression with supporting bourgeois dictatorships. Communists however, oppose war in general (save class war) because it is detrimental to the international proletariat and only serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, not because they think one capitalist nation-state is better than another capitalist nation-state.

Self determination is another story. For example, should Saudi Arabia be allowed to repress the rights of women in the name of national self determination? No. Of course some degree of self determination should be permitted to countries, but when basic human rights, among other things, are denied it becomes justifiable for other countries to pressure the country in question to observe those standards, though not through war, and in my opinion preferably not through sanctions.

[Zulu]

But don't the people of said nations deserve to rule their own country without interference (i.e. self determination)? I am absolutely against the US intervening in the affairs of others, whether it's in a "peace-keeping" or "human rights" capacity or not.

Problem is it does not matter anymore if the capitalists that oppress local proletariat are foreign, or "home". Earlier in the 20th century it was better if it were "home" capitalists, because they help develop the productive forces and all that. Then, there was the socialist camp, which was getting relatively stronger as the core imperialism was getting weaker, regardless of the nature of processes in the Third world. But since 1970s it simply ain't happening. The socialist camp broke up, and the "home" capitalists behave exactly the same as the foreign capitalists would (that is, they are "compradore").

So now in the long run it may be even better if the capitalists of the imperialist core "take care" of all the "national" capitalists (BTW, you think a guy like Ahmadinejad, for instance, wouldn't like to re-establish the Persian Empire, which would then strive for global domination? He's just a bit too late for the grab.) In the process, the capitalists of the core will stretch their resources too thin and impoverish and proletarize the petty bourgeoisie in the core countries... Then it may be World Revolution, Take 2, finally.

[Homo Songun]

Problem is it does not matter anymore if the capitalists that oppress local proletariat are foreign, or "home".

It does matter insofar as it has different effects. On one scenario, the linchpin of the system is strengthened, on the other, it isn't. There is a tendency for capital to be accumulated in fewer and fewer hands, and these days all the wars and near-wars that the anti-imperialists oppose are reflections of that process. Its the same principle that sparked the Russian revolution. The Russian bourgeoisie couldn't survive without continuing the war, and and they couldn't continue the war because the opposition to it from the Russian proletariat could not be overcome. In essence, it was as simple as that. I will note, however, there were plenty of Mensheviks at the time who accused the revolutionaries of being dupes of the German bourgeosie :lol:


The socialist camp broke up, and the "home" capitalists behave exactly the same as the foreign capitalists would (that is, they are "compradore").

A comprador (correct spelling) is not the same as a foreigner (e.g. imperialist) capitalist. They are different social groups with different origins and they fulfill different roles in society. And needless to say they are both in turn different than "home" capitalists, if by that you mean "national" capitalist. See Mao, or Wikipedia.


So now in the long run it may be even better if the capitalists of the imperialist core "take care" of all the "national" capitalists (BTW, you think a guy like Ahmadinejad, for instance, wouldn't like to re-establish the Persian Empire, which would then strive for global domination? He's just a bit too late for the grab.) In the process, the capitalists of the core will stretch their resources too thin and impoverish and proletarize the petty bourgeoisie in the core countries... Then it may be World Revolution, Take 2, finally.

Well, I'm not sure what you are talking about but it sounds very strange, the ongoing ruination of the petit bourgeoisie is not hypothetical, it has been happening for some time now. No need to wait for Kautskyian super imperialism. At any rate, it is not a sufficient condition for revolution according to Marxism.


As said before, some self proclaimed "anti-imperialists" equate opposing imperal aggression with supporting bourgeois dictatorships. Communists however, oppose war in general (save class war) because it is detrimental to the international proletariat and only serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, not because they think one capitalist nation-state is better than another capitalist nation-state.

I'm not sure if you really think that this stuff about "anti-imperialism" and "bourgeois dictators" is what communists believe, or you are just speaking in the name of communists for rhetorical effect. Anyways, what Marxists do believe is that change happens from internal contradictions in the social system. When the contradiction becomes sufficiently acute, the pace of change becomes revolutionary in scale. The social system today is the imperialist stage of capitalism. The main internal contradiction of this stage is between the bourgeoisie of the advanced rich countries on the one hand, (headed up by 3 or 4 large blocs of capital in Europe, North America, and East Asia, but especially the United States) and the working classes in rest of the world on the other. Thus, it is a class war as such, in the final analysis. Anti-imperialists who are Marxist oppose the bourgeoisie of the advanced rich countries, because their defeat paves the way for revolution. That said, while this ultimately fatal contradiction is intrinsic to capitalism, it won't necessarily fall of its own accord. Within the contradiction there is a dialectical relationship between its material basis and its reflection, a conscious element, which takes the form of anti-imperialist ideology.

However there is a ethical component as well in my opinion. Normal people don't like war mongering -- all else being equal.

[Ostrinski]

Usually anti-imperialism as a political stance involves the support of a national bourgeoisie or bourgeois government just because they stand in opposition to American or western imperialism. I am not saying that all self-described anti-imperialists do this, but that is what is usually implied by the term. So when you see people scoffing at anti-imperialists in threads on the situation in Syria or on Assad, it is usually because of those reasons. It means that those of us that don't identify as anti-imperialists resent the notion that the right position for communists to have regarding geopolitical affairs is to cross the class line.

Neither am I entirely sure that Lenin's stance on the national question (i.e. right of nations to self-determination) is conflatable with what we usually see anti-imperialism associated with. If anything, his position on revolutionary defeatism (i.e. that radicals and workers should exploit the military defeat of their own nation to push more intensely for revolution) wholly contradicts it.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I think the problem arises when people think that Fuck the US=Go DPRK Discussion should have ended here.
really, just because a state tells the US to fuck off does not mean that state is worth supporting.

[Homo Songun]

Usually anti-imperialism as a political stance involves the support of a national bourgeoisie or bourgeois government just because they stand in opposition to American or western imperialism. I am not saying that all self-described anti-imperialists do this, but that is what is usually implied by the term.

...yeah, implied by their opponents, at every opportunity :rolleyes:



It means that those of us that don't identify as anti-imperialists resent the notion that the right position for communists to have regarding geopolitical affairs is to cross the class line.

The anti-anti-imperialist position is just as exposed to accusations of crossing the class line, except the bourgeoisie that they are 'guilty' of supporting is much, much worse than $HITLER_OF_THE_WEEK. So why the anti-anti-imperialists are usually first to take recourse to this sort of dualistic argument, I don't know.

Anyways, Marx and Engels supported the national liberation struggles of their day, as in India, Poland and elsewhere, so the anti-imperialists are in good company it seems.

[Blake's Baby]

Marx and Engels also supported the 'progressive capitalism' of their day. Does this mean that Marxists should support the USA (world's biggest economy) against the Taliban (a pretty shitty and reactionary capitalism)?

Marx and Engels also supported Germany in a potential war with Russia, does that mean we as good Marxists should say, 'well, you can say what you like about Hitler, but at least he tried to modernize Russia by invading it'?

Really; get a grip with your arguments, please.

[Sasha]

anti-imperialism =/= anti-imps

anti-imps are fine with imperialism, as long as its non-US/EU/israeli imperialism, anti-imp'ism is just "leftist" orientalism taken so far that they end up cheerleading any anti-worker bourgeoisie that nominally utters something against the US from time to time, even when they in reality work(ed) hand in glove with at least western capital and often western military/intelligence like Gaddafi and Assad

[Homo Songun]

anti-imperialism =/= anti-imps
anti-imps are fine with imperialism, as long as its non-US/EU/israeli imperialism, anti-imp'ism is just "leftist" orientalism taken so far that they end up cheerleading any anti-worker bourgeoisie that nominally utters something against the US from time to time, even when [...]

What's astonishing about this argument is that it has the exact structure of an infamous retort that racists like to make when being challenged on their views about Black people, even down to the slur (invented by you, apparently). I point this out not for the cheap shot but because, like the racist argument it resembles, it is logically invalid. It is simply restating false/unproven premises in a different way.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What's astonishing about this argument is that it has the exact structure of an infamous retort that racists like to make when being challenged on their views about Black people, even down to the slur (invented by you, apparently). I point this out not for the cheap shot but because, like the racist argument it resembles, it is logically invalid. It is simply restating false/unproven premises in a different way.

Yet you don't bother to state WHY you think it is false. Presumably you haven't worked that out yet.

The argument stands, anti-imperialism is essentially cloaked anti-americanism and support for the national bourgeoisie, cloaked in the language of 'opposing imperialism' and 'supporting the people of the oppressed nation'. In reality, when challenged to prove that:

1. your anti-imperialism is not mere anti-american sentiment
2. your wish to 'support the people of the oppressed nation' in reality ends up with near unqualified support for the national dictator, even against leftist groups from within the country
3. In the case where one national bourgeoisie is imperial (Saddam, Assad etc.), why one imperialism (the American one) is apparently worse than the other.
4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: what evidence/theory is there that it is any easier to build Socialism under the national bourgeoisie than under imperialism given that, according to a Marxian/historical materialist understanding of society, more advanced capitalism is a stage further than developing capitalism, ergo capitalism is more likely to die first in....countries that have been advancing capitalism and are more developed!

[Zealot]

Because, as I've pointed out previously, Revleft is infested with closet nationalists and even open nationalists, one of whom had the gall to proclaim that he would "help the imperialists in the case of an invasion of the DPRK" (those are, almost literally, the words he used). So obviously they become a little agitated that we pick on the US to a greater degree than its minions or pitiful rivals. "Anti-imp" has become the new "insult" for these anti-marxist closet nationalists to hurl at those that don't adhere to their anti-socialist leanings.

[Captain Ahab]

Anti-imperialism is simply an excuse used by M-Ls to being apologetic for third world dictators. The worse anti-imps are those that make their anti-americanism clear by defending China's imperialist actions toward Tibet often even using similar arguments used by supporters of the war in Afghanistan.

[Sasha]

@ khatz, Anti-imp is an common and accepted term in at least the dutch and german radical left since about the late 70's, it originally referred to ppl holding a RAF/PFLP kind of analysis but is now used for anyone that substitutes a class analysis with self-proclaimed anti-imperialism.
Also you better give some arguments to why my posts is the same as racism because that's quite a charge to make and than conveniently forget to motivate.
also, there was not really any reason to shorten my quote like that unless there was some uncomfortable truth there you didn't want to engage.

[Sasha]

Because, as I've pointed out previously, Revleft is infested with closet nationalists and even open nationalists, one of whom had the gall to proclaim that he would "help the imperialists in the case of an invasion of the DPRK" (those are, almost literally, the words he used). So obviously they become a little agitated that we pick on the US to a greater degree than its minions or pitiful rivals. "Anti-imp" has become the new "insult" for these anti-marxist closet nationalists to hurl at those that don't adhere to their anti-socialist leanings.


an anti-imp that accuses its adversary's of nationalism, anti-marxism and anti-socialism, now i have seen it all.... :laugh:
sorry but we are not the one's confusing nationalist-bourgeois vs foreign-bourgeois factional warfare at the expense of the proletariat and propping up dictatorships that torture and shoot any and all revolutionary leftists or even trade-unionists with meaningful steps towards socialism, in fact its the anti-imp camp that are the last bastion of the distinctly anti-marxist notion that sometimes not even state-capitalist but just normal capitalist regimes that out of some geo-political game of bourgeois "i scratch your back if you scratch mine" refuse or are refused to deal with the US suddenly are "socialist".
because i might have not read much Marx but i'm pretty sure neither gadaffi's third-postionism, nor Baathism, nor juche, let alone what ever Mugabe or the ayatollahs are doing over at their places qualify in any shape or form as socialism or even a progressive path there too, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I agree with the O/P and I have to respectfully disagree with those on here who say the fight between the nationalists of a peripheral state trying to defend itself and the ruling bourgeoisie of the wealthy imperial countries can be simplified as a fight between capitalists. Popular nationalist leaders are sometimes all that stands between what remains of civil society in certain countries and plutocratic/theocratic rule. This is not to say don't support an armed resistance against such states provided they have some idea what they will replace the bourgeois nationalists with and that it is not capitalist or, worse, blatantly reactionary.

Such is the case in Syria. If a fractious network of bourgeois liberals (not all of them secular) loyal to the NATO and Islamic extremists were to seize power (whatever Assad's failures on democracy, his economic policies compared to his father and on defending the Syrian Golan) conditions would get objectively worse, both economically speaking and in terms of personal liberty (even compared to Assad's authoritarian regime) just as life in China would get objectively worse in the event of the bourgeois liberal restoration the Western establishment so desperately campaigns for... and in the way conditions in Libya did get worse after the toppling of Gaddafi and his replacement by jihadists who were, like nearly all Islamists, more than happy to accommodate the acceleration of neoliberal reform and the carve-up of the publically owned resources.

[Blake's Baby]

How can it not be capitalist? The world has been capitalist for more than a century. Do you think these are 'socialist regimes'? Or are they feudal?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

and in the way conditions in Libya did get worse after the toppling of Gaddafi and his replacement by jihadists who were, like nearly all Islamists, more than happy to accommodate the acceleration of neoliberal reform and the carve-up of the publically owned resources.

Qaddafi had already gone down the neo-liberal route. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.


The turmoil in Libya is mainly political/organisational, which is something everyone has to taken responsibility for, who was involved in the fighting.

[GerrardWinstanley]

How can it not be capitalist? The world has been capitalist for more than a century. Do you think these are 'socialist regimes'? Or are they feudal?Most states in the Middle East, including even the wealthy Gulf States are not fully developed capitalist states in the sense Europe, America and Japan are, given that they are overwhelmingly reliant on oil and gas extraction and, in the case of Syria, agriculture. The idea of these places becoming bourgeois democracies and "catching up" to the world's superpowers is an impossibility, since they are already serving their purpose just fine to the oligarchy of multinationals and corporations that run the global economy.

Capitalism cannot possibly benefit those unfortunate enough to live on its periphery in such a way. I'm not saying don't support the uprising in Bahrain and Egypt, which are perfectly legitimate and may lend itself well to radical political formations in the future. Just don't expect an effective democracy to spring up there in the immediate future.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Such is the case in Syria. If a fractious network of bourgeois liberals (not all of them secular) loyal to the NATO and Islamic extremists were to seize power (whatever Assad's failures on democracy, his economic policies compared to his father and on defending the Syrian Golan) conditions would get objectively worse, both economically speaking and in terms of personal liberty (even compared to Assad's authoritarian regime) just as life in China would get objectively worse in the event of the bourgeois liberal restoration the Western establishment so desperately campaigns for... and in the way conditions in Libya did get worse after the toppling of Gaddafi and his replacement by jihadists who were, like nearly all Islamists, more than happy to accommodate the acceleration of neoliberal reform and the carve-up of the publically owned resources.

Gaddafi was not replaced by "jihadists". The party in the lead is a softcore Islamist party led by a former Gaddafi toadie.


On the economy, the NFA favors globalization and attracting foreign investment. It supports privatization in principle, but says that Libya needs to first rebuild its infrastructure. It backs the idea of introducing minimum wage and expanding the Libyan social security system. NFA favors the creation of special economic zones along Libya’s borders.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forces_Alliance#cite_note-lherald-2) From 2007 to early 2011, Jibril served in the Gaddafi regime as head of the National Planning Council of Libya and of the National Economic Development Board of Libya (NEDB).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forces_Alliance#cite_note-Wikileaks09TRIPOLI764-7) While there, he was a protégé of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saif_al-Islam_Gaddafi) and promoted privatization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization) and liberalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalization) policies.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forces_Alliance#cite_note-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forces_Alliance#cite_note-peacereporter240311-9)

Damn those liberals! If only the good colonel was still in power. :cool:

[GerrardWinstanley]

Qaddafi had already gone down the neo-liberal route. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.I have no illusions about that. Still much of the economy remained in the state sector (including crude oil production which is rather important) and had a more equitable distribution of wealth than most of Africa.
The turmoil in Libya is mainly political/organisational, which is something everyone has to taken responsibility for, who was involved in the fighting.The turmoil in Libya was a disaster, whatever its origins. Thousands are dead, the new "democracy" is like a bad joke; a government of religious fanatics and torturers, lead by the man who personally sentenced the Bulgarian nurses to death on false charges on Gaddafi's behalf and who handed over their oil to multinationals. Libya is now North Africa's leading terrorist outpost, sending mercenaries into Syria and Mali. The fact nobody had a clue two years ago what the rebels were fighting for or where they acquired their weapons (at least in the beginning) should have rung alarm bells for most people.

[Luís Henrique]

Most states in the Middle East, including even the wealthy Gulf States are not fully developed capitalist states in the sense Europe, America and Japan are, given that they are overwhelmingly reliant on oil and gas extraction and, in the case of Syria, agriculture.

What does it mean "fully developed capitalist States"?

Yup, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are semi-feudal States, absolute monarchies lost in the 21st century. Which other of the States in the region is not a bourgeois State, plain ans simply?

Or do you mean they are not fully developed capitalist economies? To the extent they aren't, they will never be: scale considerations, and comparative advantages make it practically impossible for those oil-pumping economies to extend capitalist production to all trades. But this is suplemented mostly by importing commodities - and perhaps a very feeble peasant or oligarchic agriculture - not by considerable pre-capitalist economic sectors.


The idea of these places becoming bourgeois democracies and "catching up" to the world's superpowers is an impossibility, since they are already serving their purpose just fine to the oligarchy of multinationals and corporations that run the global economy.

It is impossible that they "catch up" to the developed countries in terms of economic development - unless of course the whole system breaks apart and the economies we consider developed collapse - and this certainly challenges their political development, but it is mistaken to believe that they cannot develop State structures that can more or less pass as "democratic" in the sence the US or France are democracies.


Capitalism cannot possibly benefit those unfortunate enough to live on its periphery in such a way. I'm not saying don't support the uprising in Bahrain and Egypt, which are perfectly legitimate and may lend itself well to radical political formations in the future. Just don't expect an effective democracy to spring up there in the immediate future.

That would be an issue of class strenght relations. The bourgeoisie in these countries is very weak, unable to put forward a platform of either economic or political development. Which means the regimes in these countries tend to be bonapartist, or some other kind of dictatorship that can regulate the class struggle "from outside". But this is quite conjunctural, and could change in a relatively short term (non-oil countries have indeed a better chance at this).

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

...
Capitalism cannot possibly benefit those unfortunate enough to live on its periphery in such a way. I'm not saying don't support the uprising in Bahrain and Egypt, which are perfectly legitimate and may lend itself well to radical political formations in the future. Just don't expect an effective democracy to spring up there in the immediate future.

'Capitalism cannot possibly benefit those unfortunate enough to live on its periphery...' - fair enough I agree, that's why we need to abolish it.

'... don't expect an effective democracy to spring up there in the immediate future' - why would we want to? Do you think that Egypt or Bahrain needs to become like Germany? Surely the goal is the overthrow of these states and the establishment of world communist society, not a few more liberal-democratic republics.

[blake 3:17]

@ khatz, Anti-imp is an common and accepted term in at least the dutch and german radical left since about the late 70's, it originally referred to ppl holding a RAF/PFLP kind of analysis but is now used for anyone that substitutes a class analysis with self-proclaimed anti-imperialism.


Thanks! I've never seen the term except on this board usually to knock people I agree with. It's probably stood out the most when totally imaginary class solidarity has been presented as an alternative to very concrete violence and oppression against oppressed nations and nationalities.

[goalkeeper]

and in the way conditions in Libya did get worse after the toppling of Gaddafi

erm, the deterioration of living standards immediately after revolutions and/or civil wars is pretty common. The living standards of Russians dropped after the revolution pretty badly. Not that the new regime in Libya has much potential, but the argument that the toppling of Gaddafi was bad because Libya is lawless and has seen economic breakdown is spurious. You probably wouldn't accept the argument in the case of the Russian or French revolutions.

[Sasha]

Thanks! I've never seen the term except on this board [...].


yeah, i can kind of see how ppl not familiar with the term and from an native english speaking background get so worked up over the term.
they probably see the word "imp" and associate it with the derogatory term for short people while i'm pretty sure that that is just a regrettable coincidence, germans always shorten common words into terms like that.
its like "civi's" for non-politicized member of the general public or "sponti's" for early insurrectionary/situationist types and "muesli's" for the members of the green-party
sure it's used as a bit of a slur but not in an offensive meant way, think of it as how "trot's" is mostly used around here.

[Zealot]

an anti-imp that accuses its adversary's of nationalism, anti-marxism and anti-socialism, now i have seen it all.... :laugh:
sorry but we are not the one's confusing nationalist-bourgeois vs foreign-bourgeois factional warfare at the expense of the proletariat and propping up dictatorships that torture and shoot any and all revolutionary leftists or even trade-unionists with meaningful steps towards socialism, in fact its the anti-imp camp that are the last bastion of the distinctly anti-marxist notion that sometimes not even state-capitalist but just normal capitalist regimes that out of some geo-political game of bourgeois "i scratch your back if you scratch mine" refuse or are refused to deal with the US suddenly are "socialist".
because i might have not read much Marx but i'm pretty sure neither gadaffi's third-postionism, nor Baathism, nor juche, let alone what ever Mugabe or the ayatollahs are doing over at their places qualify in any shape or form as socialism or even a progressive path there too, no matter how much mental gymnastics you do.

So now I'm being accused of being an "anti-imp". Show me one fucking place where I defended them. Don't bring those bad habits to the english language where anti-imperialist at least has a positive meaning for many people.

[GerrardWinstanley]

erm, the deterioration of living standards immediately after revolutions and/or civil wars is pretty common. The living standards of Russians dropped after the revolution pretty badly. Not that the new regime in Libya has much potential, but the argument that the toppling of Gaddafi was bad because Libya is lawless and has seen economic breakdown is spurious. You probably wouldn't accept the argument in the case of the Russian or French revolutions.Not true. The French and Russian revolutions were unmistakably radical and secular. Comparing them to the Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt or the Salafi takeover of Libya is a waste time. The latter is a religious restoration, not a revolution.

[Blake's Baby]

That wasn't the point. The fall of Ghaddafi was 'bad' because the aftermath was chaos and a fall in living standards. The fall of the Tsar, which also resulted in chaos and a fall in living standards, was ... ?

[Prof. Oblivion]

Most states in the Middle East, including even the wealthy Gulf States are not fully developed capitalist states in the sense Europe, America and Japan are

What is a "fully developed capitalist state"? How is Europe a state? So are you claiming that France is a "fully developed capitalist state"? What about Spain? Greece? Poland? What about China?


given that they are overwhelmingly reliant on oil and gas extraction and, in the case of Syria, agriculture.So if a country is overly reliant on a single or a small group of commodities for export then it isn't "fully developed"?


The idea of these places becoming bourgeois democracies and "catching up" to the world's superpowers is an impossibility, since they are already serving their purpose just fine to the oligarchy of multinationals and corporations that run the global economy.Who is arguing that they need to become democracies to catch up? Where did this response come from?


Capitalism cannot possibly benefit those unfortunate enough to live on its periphery in such a way.Where is this "capitalist periphery"? Are poor people now on the "periphery"? How is this defined?

[Homo Songun]

i might have not read much Marx but i'm pretty sure neither gadaffi's third-postionism, nor Baathism, nor juche, let alone what ever Mugabe or the ayatollahs are doing over at their places qualify in any shape or form as socialism

I can tell you haven't read much Marx, but I appreciate this post. It highlights to me the central fallacy of the anti-anti-imperialist way of thinking.

In the first place, Socialism will replace capitalism, but it doesn't vie for power with capitalism in the way you seem to be implying. Rather, capitalism is destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The main ones are: (1) labor versus capital, (2) capital versus capital, and (3) ruling and ruled nations.

If these are all true, then it follows that the duty of Marxists is to do whatever they can to heighten these contradictions, or at least not oppose their natural progression. The trouble is, your implicit assumption above seems to be that since "Mugage", "the ayatollahs" and all the rest of your bête noires aren't "socialist" on your definition of the term, then the ever increasing wars and interventions (on the part of the capitalists and against these entities) are therefore not a manifestion of the heightening contradictions within the capitalist system. That is simply not true. It is the steady concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands that drives all these wars and conflicts. Its the way the system works. If a capitalist doesn't follow this basic directive, they will soon be swallowed up by those that do. Moreover, to the degree that Zimbabwe, Iran, Libya and the rest can resist this process of concentration of capital into the hands of the dominant capitalists, it endangers capital's rule and heightens its internal contradictions.

Not for nothing did Marx say, "property relations involve the exploitation of some nations by others". I'll just quote my own post from a similar thread below, including the context in which Marx said this:



While Karl Marx isn't the final word on anything, it is interesting to read what he did have to say on the matter of national liberation. In addition to the non-socialist struggle in the U.S., he supported the national movements in Poland and Hungary. Writing at the time that Poland was an oppressed nation, he said:


For the peoples to be able truly to unite, they must have common interests. And in order that their interests may become common, the existing property relations must be done away with, for these property relations involve the exploitation of some nations by others: the abolition of existing property relations is the concern only of the working class. It alone has also the means for doing this. The victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie is, at the same time, victory over the national and industrial conflicts which today range the peoples of the various countries against one another in hostility and enmity. And so the same time the he last to wish for its restoration. But it is not only the old Poland that is lost. The old Germany, the old France, the old England, the whole of the old society is lost. But the loss of the old society is no loss for those who have nothing to lose in the old society, and this is the case of the great majority in all countries at the present time. They have rather everything to gain by the downfall of the old society, which is the condition for the establishment of a new society, one no longer based on class antagonisms.

Of all countries, England is the one where the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is most highly developed. The victory of the English proletarians over the English bourgeoisie is, therefore, decisive for the victory of all the oppressed over their oppressors. Hence Poland must be liberated not in Poland but in England. So you Chartists must not simply express pious wishes for the liberation of nations. Defeat your own internal enemies and you will then be able to pride yourselves on having defeated the entire old society.

Clearly, in the case of a conflict between the Polish and English bourgeoisies, Marx would say that the English working class movement should do more than simply abstain or express "pious wishes"; rather, they should work to undermine their own "internal enemies", in this case, the English bourgeoisie. Engels was even more succinct, as in when he famously said that "no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations." And if a colonial agenda of capital expansion and resource extraction in foreign lands isn't oppressive, then I don't know what is.

Of course the dialectical relationship between the advanced bourgeoisies and the toilers of the oppressed nations has continued to develop since Marx's day. By Lenin's time, it was apparent that the revolution would not happen wherever the proletariat was strongest, but wherever the (by this time, imperialist) bourgeoisie was weakest. The weak spot was due to the contradiction between labor and capital that Marx speaks of, but also due to the emerging contradictions between different blocs of capital, and moreover between the blocs of capital and the colonial and dependent nations that the imperialists are continually compelled to expand into in order to maintain their super-profits.

Obviously in 1917 this weak spot was manifested in the Russian empire. Nowadays it is in the global south in general. It is an important distinction that has much relevance to how the labor movement in the imperialist countries should orient itself for power in the face of their own ruling classes' compulsion to expand outwards. As Stalin said,


Formerly, the national question was regarded from a reformist point of view, as an independent question having no connection with the general question of the power of capital...Now we can say that this anti-revolutionary point of view has been exposed. ... the imperialist war and the revolution in Russia have confirmed, that the national question can be solved only in connection with and on the basis of the proletarian revolution, and that the road to victory of the revolution in the West lies through the revolutionary alliance with the liberation movement of the colonies and dependent countries against imperialism ... Hence the necessity for the proletariat of the "dominant" nations to support -- resolutely and actively to support -- the national liberation movement of the oppressed and dependent peoples.

The real take away from all this is that the working class in the imperialist countries has something to gain from seeing their own bosses fail. You don't even need to turn to "the classics" for proof this though. It is elementary logic that (1) if the richer your bosses are, the stronger they are, and (2) the stronger they are, the harder they will be to beat then (3) We should support outcomes that tend to weaken them, if we want to beat them.

[Sasha]

Quoting stalin to proof anti-imp'ism is leftist is like quoting the pope to proof that roman-catholism equals christianty.
Stalin is just another state-capitalist dictator with imperialist ambitions the people should have shot on the grave of the tsar.

[Prof. Oblivion]

It is the steady concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands that drives all these wars and conflicts. Its the way the system works. If a capitalist doesn't follow this basic directive, they will soon be swallowed up by those that do. Moreover, to the degree that Zimbabwe, Iran, Libya and the rest can resist this process of concentration of capital into the hands of the dominant capitalists, it endangers capital's rule and heightens its internal contradictions. You realize that the Iranian government is in the process of privatizing 80% of state run enterprises, right? Comically, in the last election, it was Mousavi that opposed this measure, while Ahmedinejad was hailed as the "anti-imperialist" as he cooperated with Khamenei in moving forward with this.

Or could you please explain to us how privatizing state run companies through IPO's and acquisitions helps "resist this process of concentration of capital"?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I can tell you haven't read much Marx, but I appreciate this post. It highlights to me the central fallacy of the anti-anti-imperialist way of thinking.

In the first place, Socialism will replace capitalism, but it doesn't vie for power with capitalism in the way you seem to be implying. Rather, capitalism is destroyed by its own internal contradictions. The main ones are: (1) labor versus capital, (2) capital versus capital, and (3) ruling and ruled nations.

If these are all true, then it follows that the duty of Marxists is to do whatever they can to heighten these contradictions, or at least not oppose their natural progression. The trouble is, your implicit assumption above seems to be that since "Mugage", "the ayatollahs" and all the rest of your bête noires aren't "socialist" on your definition of the term, then the ever increasing wars and interventions (on the part of the capitalists and against these entities) are therefore not a manifestion of the heightening contradictions within the capitalist system. That is simply not true. It is the steady concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands that drives all these wars and conflicts. Its the way the system works. If a capitalist doesn't follow this basic directive, they will soon be swallowed up by those that do. Moreover, to the degree that Zimbabwe, Iran, Libya and the rest can resist this process of concentration of capital into the hands of the dominant capitalists, it endangers capital's rule and heightens its internal contradictions.


Oh dear, and here you show that you may have read much Marx, but understood little. Let me explain.

You say, rather correctly, that the main contradictions, or 'flashpoints', in capitalism are thus, probably in order:

1. Labour vs Capital
2. Capital vs Capital
3. Ruling and Ruled nations

So let's examine these contradictions, their origins and their nature.

Labour vs Capital

Quite simply, originates from both the intra-class contradictions of the feudal peasantry (wealth peasants becoming landowners making primitive accumulation, poorer peasants losing their land and becoming labourers), though to merchant capital (hence 'mercantilism', protected through the British empire), through to industrial capitalism and through, today, to financial capitalism. We don't really need to go too into detail here as we are all fairly familiar with the current hegemony of capital. The only functions that we do need to highlight are those of accumulation and legitimisation. The former being the accelerated process of such accumulation through profit, via rent-seeking behaviour (i.e. lowering business costs, tax, welfare etc.), and the latter being periods of legitimising capital's rule through granting concessions, such as the post-war consensus. In other words, capital cannot merely seek the highest level of capital accumulation all the time, as this would paradoxically threaten its ability to accumulate capital by causing social unrest and increase the chances of capital's overthrow by labour. Thus there are periods where capital seeks to legitimise its rule (i.e stave off social unrest) via granting welfare and re-distributive concessions to the proletariat. However, these are ALWAYS temporary in nature, unless they can co-exist with the accumulation function (i.e. they do not harm the ability to maximise accumulation OR they can be in-corporated into a for-profit model).

Capital vs Capital

Here is where I think you start to miss the point somewhat. There is certainly a level of contradiction between capital under capitalism. Marxism is no conspiracy theory and does not see capital as an organised economic bloc. Rather, capital dominates as a sort of indefatigable tendency under capitalism. Capitalism, however, evolves and this is where the contradictions between different capitals comes from. Early capitalistic development was still agriculturally based; the early split in the class of the peasantry led to wealthy 'peasants' holding huge swathes of land and becoming so rich that they employed poorer peasants who had become effectively landless labourers, to do their domestic services. The latter worked for a subsistence wage whilst the former got rich off the labourer's fruits, i.e living beyond subsistence. You then had the period of mercantile capitalism where the merchants gained hold of the handicrafts and guilds and traded into new markets that the individual artisans who previously controlled their own handicrafts could never have accessed. This was largely helped by Britain's empire and ability to force demand in markets in the colonies. Combined with protectionism and comparative advantage, mercantilism proved an economic success. With industrialisation this continued, but of course when the US, Germany and others began to catch up, markets tended to open up and of course, in the 20th Century we have seen a decline in the industrial power of many former industrial nations. Britain and the US can be seen as post-industrial nations. Britain's greatest profit-maker, its biggest market and its biggest attraction for contemporary blocs of capital are its financial institutions. As Hilferding saw almost 100 years ago, industrial capitalism has given way to financial capitalism, which was foreshadowed or indeed accompanied itself by a decline in commercial money and an inexorable rise in credit money. Thus, for non-financial firms, they must continually raise capital to continue operations that lead to capital accumulation from financial capitalists. Financial capitals produce nothing, their activity is purely rent-seeking. So they lend credit money and their profit margin is largely equivalent to the rate of interest on their credit loans, and mostly they are lending to non-financial firms. In other words, not only do we have a situation in the most developed countries where all of capital is extracting surplus and thus accumulating capital on the back of the worker, but financial capital in addition is extracting profit from non-financial blocs of capital in the forms of credit loans, creating another contradiction within capitalism.

Ruling vs Ruled nations

The problem here is actually counter-intuitive. Economic growth means that development is not a zero-sum game. That one nation is already developed does not mean that another is not. Rather, what is key for development is capitalism. Certain nations - due to factors economic, social and political - can be seen as under-developed in capitalist terms, hence some people call them 'semi-feudal' (I prefer not to, since this is a capitalist world and all nations are involved in trade). However, the problem of developing nations can be in some ways traced to developed nations:

1. In terms of war - obviously, war leads to destruction, plunder and political turmoil, which sets back development.
2. In terms of unfair trade - this includes economic imperialism and all its associated ills.

So of course, anti-imperialism and an anti-war stance are two key factors in promoting the development of poorer nations. They are necessary, however they are certainly not sufficient, which is why we cannot possibly condone the North Korean or Zimbabwean models. Suffice to say, we historical materialists view history in stages - from ancient and asiatic to feudal, from feudal to capitalist, from capitalist to...? No country can skip the capitalist stage of development. To say otherwise is to say something that belongs in the trashcan of some neo-liberal development advice booklet, not on the Marxist/anarchist left. Under-developed countries must engage in trade on fair terms, whilst increasing agricultural productivity. No increase in agricultural productivity = no towns and cities as populations there cannot be supported = no industrial development = no economic growth = little/no development. It's that simple. At the same time, development can be augmented by having new markets available for produced products. I'm not merely talking about oil or diamonds, but new innovations as a pre-cursor to full-blown industrial production. But without the availability of new markets, there is no incentive for this activity and so development will be halted.

So you see, the key here is to have a balanced view of the development of societies in terms of stages, according to the historical materialist model. Anti-imperialism plays a role, anti-war stances play a huge role, but we cannot simply be anti-America, or pro-*insert national bourgeoisie*, because really in order for a country to develop it needs to go through the capitalist stage of development that the countries which many of us are from have gone through.

[Let's Get Free]

Opposing imperialism without opposing the state and capital simply means demanding new bosses.

[Homo Songun]

Lots of stuff
Glorious exposition, comrade. I'm unsure how it relates to anything I've said, though. Let me ask you directly then: what do you think are the obligations of revolutionaries, living in imperialist countries, in relation to wars for profits that are being prosecuted by their own bourgeoisie?




It is the steady concentration of capital into fewer and fewer hands that drives all these wars and conflicts. Its the way the system works. If a capitalist doesn't follow this basic directive, they will soon be swallowed up by those that do. Moreover, to the degree that Zimbabwe, Iran, Libya and the rest can resist this process of concentration of capital into the hands of the dominant capitalists, it endangers capital's rule and heightens its internal contradictions. You realize that the Iranian government is in the process of privatizing 80% of state run enterprises, right? Comically, in the last election, it was Mousavi that opposed this measure, while Ahmedinejad was hailed as the "anti-imperialist" as he cooperated with Khamenei in moving forward with this.

Or could you please explain to us how privatizing state run companies through IPO's and acquisitions helps "resist this process of concentration of capital"?

To be honest I was initially befuddled by your very strange response here.

The only way I can make sense of it, is to presume that you think the Iranian capitalist class is somehow part of the "dominant capitalists" I spoke of. Do you really think that the Iranian bourgeoisie is somehow on an equal footing with the US bourgeoisie? If so, why is it that there are something like 45 US military bases in the countries surrounding Iran, but 0 Iranian bases in Mexico or Canada?

But the bigger question is this: on what interpretation of the facts can the liquidation of state assets into private hands, under a bourgeois republic, be seen as not part of the process of capital concentration? Keeping in mind the traditional Marxist conception of the State being the representative of a particular class as a whole.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Glorious exposition, comrade. I'm unsure how it relates to anything I've said, though. Let me ask you directly then: what do you think are the obligations of revolutionaries, living in imperialist countries, in relation to wars for profits that are being prosecuted by their own bourgeoisie?



I've already answered that sort of question, if you'd bothered to engage with what i've written instead of childishly quoting my post as you did.

[Homo Songun]

Tell me again.

[Sentinel]

Tell me again.

As this is the second time in a few days you've made spam posts, and as you received a verbal warning the last time, I'm issuing you an infraction. It is also very disrespectful to answer with a witty oneliner to such a lengthy reply like The Boss made to your post.

Please remember this in the future.

[Zealot]

Also, one other problem on Revleft is that people actually have no idea of what the theory of imperialism is or entails, particularly that of Lenin's. All imperialist countries are capitalist but not all capitalist countries are imperialist because imperialism only happens at a certain stage of development in capitalism. It would have been ridiculous to speak of Indian Imperialism a few decades ago but India is now the foremost imperialist power in that region (but not on the same level of US Imperialism, to be sure).

[Blake's Baby]

Also, one other problem on Revleft is that people actually have no idea of what the theory of imperialism is or entails, particularly that of Lenin's. All imperialist countries are capitalist but not all capitalist countries are imperialist because imperialism only happens at a certain stage of development in capitalism. It would have been ridiculous to speak of Indian Imperialism a few decades ago but India is now the foremost imperialist power in that region (but not on the same level of US Imperialism, to be sure).

But as capitalism is a world system, has been since the early 20th century (as Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and Luxemburg, then the entire Communist International, all recognised at the time) then 'the development of capitalism' reached the imperialist stage more than 100 years ago. It would be 'ridiculous' to speak of 'Indian imperialism' a few decades ago... when it was fighting territorial wars with Pakistan and China, you mean? Or when it was exporting to capital to Britain in the 1940s? When?

[Zealot]

But as capitalism is a world system, has been since the early 20th century (as Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin and Luxemburg, then the entire Communist International, all recognised at the time) then 'the development of capitalism' reached the imperialist stage more than 100 years ago. It would be 'ridiculous' to speak of 'Indian imperialism' a few decades ago... when it was fighting territorial wars with Pakistan and China, you mean? Or when it was exporting to capital to Britain in the 1940s? When?

And capitalism develops unevenly, as they all recognised as well.

The export of capital from a British colony and the territorial wars after it was partitioned by its colonial rulers is Indian imperialism? Are you fucking serious?

[Blake's Baby]

Sure it develops unevenly. But the First World War still happened. We're in the epoch of wars and revolutions, which is the imperialist epoch. Imperialism in confined to a few countries even if capitalist development is uneven. It's not a policy, it's a dynamic, and world capitalism has been in that dynamic for more than a century. So, no, there are no 'non-imperialist' countries.

As to India, I'm trying to get a handle on what you mean by imperialism. Are you serious?

[black magick hustla]

well, "anti imperialism" nowadays in the west implies the political corpses/leftovers left behind by groups that were geared around china's or the ussr's geopolitics. in the cold war days, "anti imperialism" a lot of the times meant siding with the geopolitical interests of either the ussr or china.

anyway, nowadays, "anti-imperialists" in the west belong to sects that spend their free time doing pro-bono pr work for whichever strongman/military dictator they feel has some sort of semblance with old school soviet/chinese geopolitics. one of my fav. pieces of sect talk was some document drafted by cadre from the national lawyers guild about the democratic organs of the dprk. these groups are only worth your time in so far that they tend to create dishonest front groups to elope wide eyed activists from semi mainstream movements/groups/student groups etc. otherwise these people are clowns and should be taken as seriously as any new age cult.

of course, i am not dismissing real "anti imperialism" which is fronting your own statesmen/capitalists in times of war/jingoism. however this is usually a different thing than the ridiculous mental gymnastics marxist leninist/maoist theology seminaries go through.

[Rafiq]

The fall of the Tsar, which also resulted in chaos and a fall in living standards, was ... ?

The result of a proletarian revolution which later degenerated, not a bunch of reactionaries with awful intentions who *gasp* see to them.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thus there are periods where capital seeks to legitimise its rule (i.e stave off social unrest) via granting welfare and re-distributive concessions to the proletariat. However, these are ALWAYS temporary in nature, unless they can co-exist with the accumulation function (i.e. they do not harm the ability to maximise accumulation OR they can be in-corporated into a for-profit model).

[...]

As Hilferding saw almost 100 years ago, industrial capitalism has given way to financial capitalism, which was foreshadowed or indeed accompanied itself by a decline in commercial money and an inexorable rise in credit money. Thus, for non-financial firms, they must continually raise capital to continue operations that lead to capital accumulation from financial capitalists. Financial capitals produce nothing, their activity is purely rent-seeking.

[...]

Under-developed countries must engage in trade on fair terms, whilst increasing agricultural productivity. No increase in agricultural productivity = no towns and cities as populations there cannot be supported = no industrial development = no economic growth = little/no development. It's that simple. At the same time, development can be augmented by having new markets available for produced products. I'm not merely talking about oil or diamonds, but new innovations as a pre-cursor to full-blown industrial production.

Would it not be accurate to say, then, that it is in an economically multi-polar or bi-polar world where worker struggles advance the greatest?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Would it not be accurate to say, then, that it is in an economically multi-polar or bi-polar world where worker struggles advance the greatest?

You're really gonna have to help me out on this one, I have no idea what you mean...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, we've seen how US dominance has stifled worker struggles, but go further back to when Britain was way more dominant vs. the three or so decades before WWI when it started to face competition.

In today's context, ask about US decline and multi-polar potential re. China, Brazil, India, Germany, and more.

[blake 3:17]

yeah, i can kind of see how ppl not familiar with the term and from an native english speaking background get so worked up over the term.
they probably see the word "imp" and associate it with the derogatory term for short people while i'm pretty sure that that is just a regrettable coincidence, germans always shorten common words into terms like that.

I'd taken it as a condescending insult. Thanks again for the clarification.

[TiberiusGracchus]

If you are not an anti-imperialist then you are not a marxist or communist.


But some people who call themselves anti-imperialists are not actually anti-imperialists in the marxist sense, they are rather mirror the imperialist ideologues and support whatever they are against and call this "anti-imperialism".

But if you take this as an excuse to say "fuck anti-imperialism, fuck everything outside the western world" then you are an idiot and not a revolutionary.

[hashem]

true anti-imperialism is one thing, defending reactionary governments of Syria, Iran, north Korea or Cuba is another thing.

i see no similarity between these two.

[Blake's Baby]

...

But if you take this as an excuse to say "fuck anti-imperialism, fuck everything outside the western world" then you are an idiot and not a revolutionary.

But no-one is. Those of us who are being accused of this - primarily, the Left Communists, but also the other 'ultra-Lefts' - do not say 'fuck everything outside the western world'. There would hardly be Left-Comm or other ultra-Left groups in the Phillipines, Korea, Tanzania, Venezuela, Brazil, India etc if this were the case.

The point is 'anti-Imperialism' should not be the same as 'anti-Americanism', nor should it be the same as supporting brutal regimes in the '3rd world' just because the Americans don't like them at any given moment. The US is not the only imperialist power in the world. It's merely the most successful at present.

[TiberiusGracchus]

But no-one is. Those of us who are being accused of this - primarily, the Left Communists, but also the other 'ultra-Lefts' - do not say 'fuck everything outside the western world'. There would hardly be Left-Comm or other ultra-Left groups in the Phillipines, Korea, Tanzania, Venezuela, Brazil, India etc if this were the case.

Well, there hardly is. ;)

Joke aside, I'm quite sympathetic to much left-communist thinking.

Though I believe there are disturbing tendencies within the current left (not specificly ultra-left) to downplay international solidarity and anti-imperialism. Often with arguments that we should focus on local or national struggle, sharing the same conception as the false anti-imps of anti-imperialism as something that happens "over there", failing to regognice that we live in imperialist countries and our international solidarity is meaningful only as anti-imperialist class struggle at home. The communist party here in Sweden for example says: Sweden should not support US-imperialism! As if Sweden was not an imperialist state!

Theres even more disturbing tendencies within the left to support and justify imperialist wars, like in Libya for example. With liberal arguments. Sure it was decades since Khadaffi was somewhat progressive and anti-imperialist, now he was just another right-wing oppressor. But so was Saddam. No one on the left supported the US invasion for that sake. And no one on the left percieved that as support for Saddam Husseins regime. But now there's a lot of these stupid opinions going around. Pro-imperialists on the left blaming other left-wing people for supporting oppressive regimes and many left-wing people actually doing it. It's fucked up tbh.

There's a lot of serious schooling needing to be done on the subject.



The point is 'anti-Imperialism' should not be the same as 'anti-Americanism', nor should it be the same as supporting brutal regimes in the '3rd world' just because the Americans don't like them at any given moment. The US is not the only imperialist power in the world. It's merely the most successful at present.

Agreed. That's pretty much what I said.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I think this castigating of "anti-imps" - treating them as pernicious outsiders that we should have nothing to do with - is a worrying trend actually.

Anti-imperialism and anti-war(ism) is a gigantic global movement of hugely disparate groups with differing agenda, and we would do it a grave disservice if we try and say that all "proper" anti-imperialists must talk about Lenin and Bukharin, and reduce all their analysis down to class war (I oppose what as I see as a kind of crass reductionist Marxism here).

The emphasis should not be on making everyone else a proper, right-on, anti-imperialist, but in joining forces with as many others as possible in order to resist war and the death, destruction and destabilization it brings. You don't have to be a communist to oppose mass slaughter.

Finally, it is also worth noting that most people here who seem overly touchy-feely about "anti-imps" are, in fact, Americans. Perhaps you would see it slightly differently if you weren't (especially if you were not from "the West" at all, not even Europe). The USA is the imperialist nation par excellence, vastly outstripping all other countries in the sheer scale of carnage it inflicts worldwide. Thus, anti-imperialists are going to be constantly criticising US foreign policy for the continuing human catastrophe that it undoubtedly is. That doesn't make them anti-American, and they shouldn't have to falsely give "equal time" to the imperialist policies of other nations (often trivial by comparison) to prove that they are not.

[Blake's Baby]

I think this castigating of "anti-imps" - treating them as pernicious outsiders that we should have nothing to do with - is a worrying trend actually.

Anti-imperialism and anti-war(ism) is a gigantic global movement of hugely disparate groups with differing agenda, and we would do it a grave disservice if we try and say that all "proper" anti-imperialists must talk about Lenin and Bukharin, and reduce all their analysis down to class war (I oppose what as I see as a kind of crass reductionist Marxism here)...

I don't know how many 'Stop the War' and similar demos you've been on since 2001 (for example) but please believe me that the majority of 'anti-imperialists' and 'anti-war' demostrators are neither anti-imperialist nor against war; of the 1.5 million people who marched 'against the war' in London in February 2003, for example - the biggest political demonstration that the UK had ever seen - the majority was actually for the war - only, one (huge) section of the demo wanted Iraq to win (ie, supported Iraqi imperialism), or another group was for the war against Iraq, if France (and the rest of the UN) joined in as well (ie, supported French imperialism). They were all there to oppose American and British imperialism, but very very few (a few dozens or a few hundreds maybe) were there to oppose the war, and imperialism, per se.


...The emphasis should not be on making everyone else a proper, right-on, anti-imperialist, but in joining forces with as many others as possible in order to resist war and the death, destruction and destabilization it brings. You don't have to be a communist to oppose mass slaughter...

But you do have to oppose mass slaughter to oppose mass slaughter. Supporting mass slaughter by the other side is not opposing mass slaughter.


...Finally, it is also worth noting that most people here who seem overly touchy-feely about "anti-imps" are, in fact, Americans. Perhaps you would see it slightly differently if you weren't (especially if you were not from "the West" at all, not even Europe). The USA is the imperialist nation par excellence, vastly outstripping all other countries in the sheer scale of carnage it inflicts worldwide. Thus, anti-imperialists are going to be constantly criticising US foreign policy for the continuing human catastrophe that it undoubtedly is. That doesn't make them anti-American, and they shouldn't have to falsely give "equal time" to the imperialist policies of other nations (often trivial by comparison) to prove that they are not.

By 'touchy-feely about "anti-imps"' do you mean friendly towards "anti-imps" (which is what 'touchy-feely' usually means) or as the context suggests, hostile to "anti-imps"?

I'm hostile to anti-imps and not American. Hashem is hostile to anti-imps and not American. Psycho is hostile to anti-imps and not American. Coup d'etat and bcbm are from the US - but so are some of those with a pro 'anti-imp' position, such as soso17. Whether one is pro- or anti the 'anti-imperialist' position does not depend on whether or not one is in the US, but on whether or not one particuarly blames the US for the capitalist system, or alternatively blames the capitalist system for the US.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I don't know how many 'Stop the War' and similar demos you've been on since 2001 (for example) but please believe me that the majority of 'anti-imperialists' and 'anti-war' demostrators are neither anti-imperialist nor against war; of the 1.5 million people who marched 'against the war' in London in February 2003, for example - the biggest political demonstration that the UK had ever seen - the majority was actually for the war - only, one (huge) section of the demo wanted Iraq to win (ie, supported Iraqi imperialism), or another group was for the war against Iraq, if France (and the rest of the UN) joined in as well (ie, supported French imperialism). They were all there to oppose American and British imperialism, but very very few (a few dozens or a few hundreds maybe) were there to oppose the war, and imperialism, per se.

Indeed this is true, most of the marchers in 2003 were not consistently anti-war, and many were probably for the war in Afghanistan two years earlier. But such is the nature of any mass demonstration. Many would have been OK with the war if the French had signed on to the second UN resolution. And hell, there were plenty of Tory scum against the war too.

I think what I'm trying to say is that there must be a third way, neither distancing ourselves from others who we deem insufficiently anti-imperialist, and not being quiet about the Marxist or radical tradition of anti-imperialism either.

Maybe I'm trying to square a circle here, but bear in mind that there is no such thing as imperialism per se but only specific government and military decisions that are imperialist, and it should always be possible to form a broad alliance against this war or that war.

The idea of a corresponding Iraqi imperialism to US/UK imperialism here is nonsense (unless I have misunderstood you). Iraqis had (and have) every right to resist military occupation, even if we would all prefer some kind of peaceful settlement. I don't know how an Iraqi fighting against the troops of a foreign government in his own capital city, Baghdad, would be an "imperialist" - whatever else we think of him. Its just an abuse of language.

This smacks of, as I said in my last post, a kind of artificial insistence on giving all involved parties "equal time" in one's critique, which can give the false appearance of moral equivalence between them. The US and UK were clearly the aggressors, Iraqis the victims.


I Whether one is pro- or anti the 'anti-imperialist' position does not depend on whether or not one is in the US, but on whether or not one particularly blames the US for the capitalist system, or alternatively blames the capitalist system for the US.

I don't think that is much of a dichotomy, since the reality is that both opposing propositions are true. There has been such a convergence of US (perceived, elite/government) national interest, and the general interest of capital, throughout the twentieth century, that any attempt to look through the historical record and theoretically distinguish between the two is going to be extremely difficult.

Frankly I don't much believe in the usefulness of the base/superstructure metaphor when it comes to understanding international politics and conflict, as I think states exercise a large degree of autonomy which is not always adequately explained through economic class analysis. States act out of self-interest in an anarchic world system, just as the “realist” theorists of international relations suggest. That this is only half the story doesn't mean it is wrong.

Much of the global financial system is geared toward promoting the interests of the US state, against those of other capitalisms. The dollar is the world’s currency of accumulation, in terms of holding debt and reserves, yet it is controlled by the US state, for instance. The portrayal of capitalism as just a web-like world system - with no nodal point, no head to the beast - can sometimes obscure this.

[Blake's Baby]

...

Maybe I'm trying to square a circle here, but bear in mind that there is no such thing as imperialism per se but only specific government and military decisions that are imperialist, and it should always be possible to form a broad alliance against this war or that war....

Absolutely not - imperialism isn't just a 'policy' that can be turned on or off. It is a dynamic inherent in capitalism that has been demonstrating itself for 120 yeras or so. If you think there is no such thing as 'imperialism' then I'm afraid there is little common ground of argument here as in my estimation, you have taken leave of reality, sorry.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Absolutely not - imperialism isn't just a 'policy' that can be turned on or off. It is a dynamic inherent in capitalism that has been demonstrating itself for 120 yeras or so. If you think there is no such thing as 'imperialism' then I'm afraid there is little common ground of argument here as in my estimation, you have taken leave of reality, sorry.

I was making an entirely different point, concerning organisation. One doesn't demonstrate against "imperialism" or against "war" per se, because these are nouns. You don't make a placard saying "down with all bad things that happen everywhere!" and then hold a lottery or something to decide where to stand. In terms of bringing together groups of people for a demonstration or for starting particular political movements, these things usually coalesce around opposition to specific events, specific wars, or the foreign policies of particular governments.

Thus, I was wondering whether it is even an issue that not everyone is going to agree on all of their politics, and that there are going to be "anti-imps" rubbing shoulders with socialists, Tories marching with class war anarchists.

Of course we think many of these wars are interconnected, resulting in the last instance from capitalist world relations. But is it a problem if not everyone thinks so, if we are trying to stop this war on Iraq, on this day in February? We can cross the next bridge when we come to it. As I said, this could be a squaring of the circle, but this makes sense to me.