Originally posted by Sa'd al-
[email protected] 20 2005, 06:07 PM
Capitalism has essentially ceased to be a progressive force basically since the dawn of imperialism; it does not necessarily need to reach any higher stage for revolution to become possible.
True...but there are economic processes happening that make conditions more favorable for proletarian revolutions. The expansion of the working class worldwide, for one obvious example.
On the other hand, with the fall of the Eastern Bloc, capitalism has opened more markets for exploitation.
Has it? They're not exactly experiencing a profit bonanza in the former Soviet-bloc countries, going by the state of the world economy since. And especially the stagnation of the German economy - German capitalists have invested the most in the former Soviet bloc, along with swallowing the GDR.
Instead, as you point out...
Concessions made to placate the working class are being removed
Which is something that typically happens during period of economic difficulty.
and the capitalists no longer feel restraint in plundering the world at will. A new more “naked” imperialism has meant that nations who try to harbor their resources for their own purposes or fail to fall in line with the interests of the imperialist are subject to being targeted extremely violently.
Which never happened before?
Nope, Washington's increased use of military force is driven by two things: One, other means fail it more often, due to the instability of its client regimes, and because it no longer has the possibility of getting the USSR to influence its clients and franchise CPs in order to resolve "regional conflicts". Two, increased conflict and rivalry with other advanced capitalist powers. Both reflect the weakness, not increased strength, of imperialism.
“Globalization” is a symptom of this imperialist development, a highly repressive one continues the exploitation of the working class on a global scale and continues the flow of capital away from the third world and into the main imperialist countries.
Seems like different people are using that word "globalization" to mean different things. Which you gotta expect, since it's a vague term, probably invented by somebody who didn't even claim to be Marxist.
I'm using it fairly literally, to describe a trend older than the imperialist period. Some others are using it as an alias for imperialism....in which case, why use a new term?
I'm guessing from context you're using it to describe certain policies and agreements being pushed by some imperialists under the banner of "free trade." OK, the globalization buzzward was invented in the context of opposing those trade policies, so that's probably the most common meaning. I think this does reflect a certain political fuzziness, though.
The working class opposes this and communists should stand behind them in their opposition.
To say someone "opposes globalization" conceals more than it reveals about their political stand. What are they for?
Many workers in Latin America, for example, oppose the "free trade" agreements because they expand imperialist economic domination of their countries, while allowing the imperialists to retain significant import barriers again Latin American products. Workers and trade unions in Latin America have raised demands against those import barriers. The most progressive forces in Latin America have promoted regional trade blocs, which do not include the imperialist countries, as an alternative. This is a form of anti-imperialist resistance.
In contrast, many workers in the U.S., and certainly the union officialdom, oppose the "free trade" agreements for the opposite reason: to save "American jobs" for "American workers". They may oppose the same things, but what they are for is opposite.
This stand has nothing to do with the interests of the world working class, or certainly class struggle! On the contrary, it involves defending the interests of sections of the U.S. capitalist class. The United Steelworkers of America has been "opposing globalization" through a joint campaign with the main steel companies to save "our companies" and "our industry" by means of import barriers. This provides the steel companies with the cover to blame imports and foreign competition as they weasel out of their pension obligations and screw thousands of retirees...which little opposition from the USWA officialdom.
It also converges with the "economic nationalist" demagogy of wannabe Fuherers like Patrick Buchanan. He kicked off his last presidential campaign at a meeting hosted by the Independent Steelworkers Union in Weirton, PA, a steelmaking town. Those who support protectionism in the name of opposing globalization, are clearing the way for ultrarightist demagogy.
I might comment, incidentally, that despite widespread protectionist sentiment among U.S. workers, neither the labor officialdom nor anyone else has ever been very successful in mobilizing that sentiment in action.
As far as the trade policies of imperialist countries, the stand Karl Marx laid out is still valid today. After pointing out that workers will "go to the wall" under either protectionism or free trade, he said:
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
(Of course, agreements like NAFTA do not in fact implement free trade; numerous protectionist measures are retained.)
Additionally, we should solidarize with the oppressed countries and the workers of those countries, by demanding the abolition of all trade barriers against their imports in the imperialist countries.
In the semicolonial countries, in contrast, protectionist measures can be a necessary part of resisting imperialist economic domination and developing national industries. Regional trade blocs can also be progressive for this reason.