[STUDY GROUP] Imperialism Discussion

[ComradeOm]

The Discussion from ( http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52219 )

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just a few notes on the Prefaces....


Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)The pamphlet here presented to the reader was written in the spring of 1916, in Zurich. In the conditions in which I was obliged to work there I naturally suffered somewhat from a shortage of French and English literature and from a serious dearth of Russian literature. However, I made use of the principal English work on imperialism, the book by J. A. Hobson, with all the care that, in my opinion, that work deserves.[/b]

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...zz99h-187-GUESS (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref01.htm#v22zz99h-187-GUESS)

Now this, to me anyway, is a somewhat important admission. That is, Lenin bluntly says that he "suffered somewhat from a shortage of French and English literature and from a serious dearth of Russian literature"....and, therefore, he was forced to rely on one work in particular. Now, I'm not aware of Lenin ever going back and redoing this work, so I think it would be unfair to hold this particular work up at the same heights as, say, Capital....a work that incorporated years of serious study and that used a variety of different sources.

Basically, I just thought that it would be important to note that the work we are about to read was not the most meticulously researched work in the World....meaning, therefore, that some of it's conclusions can possibly be taken with a pinch of salt.


Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)It is not a mere accident, therefore, that Kautsky’s followers all over the world have now united in practical politics with the extreme opportunists (through the Second, or Yellow International) and with the bourgeois governments (through bourgeois coalition governments in which socialists take part).[/b]

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...zz99h-189-GUESS (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm#v22zz99h-189-GUESS)

It's worth noting, that various self-described communist groups did the same during the Second World War. The CP's, including the CPGB, joined together with the Allied War effort and uncritically defended its every action, various Trotskyist inspired Shop Committees worked to undercut workers struggle in order to keep production running smoothly and so on.


Originally posted by Lenin
To combat these tendencies is the bounden duty of the party of the proletariat, which must win away from the bourgeoisie the small proprietors who are duped by them....

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...zz99h-189-GUESS (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm#v22zz99h-189-GUESS)

If you don&#39;t think the platform of linking together the Kings of small capital and the working class hints at a certain class orientation, then I think somethings wrong. <_<


Originally posted by Lenin
....and the millions of working people who enjoy more or less petty-bourgeois conditions of life.

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...zz99h-189-GUESS (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm#v22zz99h-189-GUESS)

I really don&#39;t see that myself. After all, Lenin&#39;s talking about the early 20th century here....and compared to now, the "conditions of life" of most working men and women, were hardly anything to write home about. I mean, what would Lenin consider a working class "condition of life"? Living in a pig sty? :blink:


[email protected]
This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois....

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...zz99h-189-GUESS (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm#v22zz99h-189-GUESS)

You see, I don&#39;t really buy this hypothesis. I mean Lenin thinks that the Kautsky&#39;s of this World have been "bribed" by the capitalist class so that they will become "the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement". Yet, as far as I can see, in order for them to have been bribed, then they would have had to, originally at least, be of a class that was not alien to the working class....and, frankly, that&#39;s what I don&#39;t buy.

I mean, in my opinion, when a big labour man becomes a Labour Party MP and his politics go off on a tangent, he&#39;s not been "bribed" by the capitalist class....rather, he&#39;s joined said class by becoming one of its Administrators. And that&#39;s the thing, in my estimation it&#39;s not the money they receive that changes these people, it&#39;s the fact that their objective relationship to the means of production has changed....that is, they&#39;ve changed classes.


Imperialism is the eve of the social revolution of the proletariat. This has been confirmed since 1917 on a world-wide scale.

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/19...zz99h-189-GUESS (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/pref02.htm#v22zz99h-189-GUESS)

Missed badly there. <_<


Taboo Tongue
Is there anything I need to know?

Not that I can think of. I mean, if you&#39;re unable to participate at the moment, then you can always come back to this and add your comments at a later date. I wouldn&#39;t mind if in a few weeks you said something on the Preface or the first chapter or whatever....I&#39;ll be happy so long as we get participants. :)

[Amusing Scrotum]

Oh, and on the issue of advertising, could people maybe add the following to their signatures:


&#91;URL=http&#58;//www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showforum=68&#93;Join the Study Group on Imperialism.&#91;/URL&#93;

If you can think of a more catchy line, then use that. <_<

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 8 2006, 04:45 PM
Basically, I just thought that it would be important to note that the work we are about to read was not the most meticulously researched work in the World....meaning, therefore, that some of it&#39;s conclusions can possibly be taken with a pinch of salt.
AFAIK Hobson’s work is, by some distance, the most complete and accurate study of the expansion of European empires and companies during the latter stages of the 19th century. Certainly there&#39;s not much competition... unless you know of another detailed study from that time? Criticising Lenin for only using that is akin to criticising Marxists for basing their critiques of capitalism on Kapital.


It&#39;s worth noting, that various self-described communist groups did the same during the Second World War. The CP&#39;s, including the CPGB, joined together with the Allied War effort and uncritically defended its every action, various Trotskyist inspired Shop Committees worked to undercut workers struggle in order to keep production running smoothly and so on.
The failings of the Popular Front have been adequately detailed elsewhere.


If you don&#39;t think the platform of linking together the Kings of small capital and the working class hints at a certain class orientation, then I think somethings wrong. <_<
The petit-bourgeoisie is not a monolithic class and they are also in conflict with the bourgeoisie. Segments of it may well find it in their interests to ally themselves with the proletariat or may be forced to. It was the same as those nobles who found a new niche within capitalism. As always this is something that Marx noted first.


I really don&#39;t see that myself. After all, Lenin&#39;s talking about the early 20th century here....and compared to now, the "conditions of life" of most working men and women, were hardly anything to write home about. I mean, what would Lenin consider a working class "condition of life"? Living in a pig sty? :blink:
Essentially yes. Lenin lived when the rise of the labour aristocracy could no longer be hidden. Suddenly privileged workers were living at a standard that had previously been reserved for the petit-bourgeois professionals.


I mean, in my opinion, when a big labour man becomes a Labour Party MP and his politics go off on a tangent, he&#39;s not been "bribed" by the capitalist class....rather, he&#39;s joined said class by becoming one of its Administrators. And that&#39;s the thing, in my estimation it&#39;s not the money they receive that changes these people, it&#39;s the fact that their objective relationship to the means of production has changed....that is, they&#39;ve changed classes.
You’re forgetting a little thing I like to call class analysis. Why would a member of the proletariat align themselves with a class that has diametrically opposing aims to the workers? That is what Lenin was attempting to answer here.

[Janus]

So we all have to be online at the same time on Monday and discuss it or is it going to be treated like a normal discussion thread?

By the way, the discussion has already started? Perhaps we should have the discussions in the main forum. The study group has been inactive for a while so I don&#39;t think that many people will check in it at the beginning.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Just a brief note, I had a really long weekend so I&#39;m a little fragile at the moment ( <_< ) and slightly behind on the reading....but I&#39;ll catch up and read the next chapters soon. Because, additionally, it seems like the discussions relating to this may provoke some interesting debates. At the very least, I suppose Om and I will enter into another fricking mammoth discussion at some point. :P


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Criticising Lenin for only using that is akin to criticising Marxists for basing their critiques of capitalism on Kapital.[/b]

I don&#39;t think that analogy is very valid myself. You see, your "everyday Marxist" isn&#39;t attempting to become a theoretical giant or come up with some groundbreaking new hypothesis....where as Lenin was. And, therefore, a more suitable comparison would have been if Marx had only used one main source to pen Capital in the first place....where as, in reality, he spent years studying and researching for it.

Lenin, on the other hand, due to factors that were mainly external and beyond his control, was simply unable to give his offspring the same amount of attention. That&#39;s not a "bad thing", in and of itself, it just means that, in my opinion, we should bear that in mind before we accept some of the more curious (?) hypothesise.

After all, in any field, if one were to propose a series of new hypothesise, they would need to draw evidence from a variety of places....and spend years, even decades, thoroughly researching the topic. Where as, in this case, Lenin produced a pamphlet....which he likely saw as merely a foundation on which a theoretical house could be built.


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)The failings of the Popular Front have been adequately detailed elsewhere.[/b]

Yah, I was just pointing out the validity of Lenin&#39;s point here. That is, what Lenin observed and commented on in 1917, was valid in 1940....and that, in my opinion, shows that Lenin&#39;s comments, on this issue, were pretty accurate.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
The petit-bourgeoisie is not a monolithic class and they are also in conflict with the bourgeoisie.

Well, "small proprietors" as a social group, are pretty damn "monolithic". And whilst, to an extent, I&#39;d agree that for short periods of time interests can and do overlap, I think trying to create a political programme that brings together class enemies strikes me as remarkably naive....or worse.

I mean, you yourself have commented on how the influence of the Peasantry and their distinct interests created problems within the Bolshevik Party, so I don&#39;t see how you can fail to realise that an alliance between two opposing classes wouldn&#39;t become troublesome.

At the very least, I think the failures of the mentioned approach can be shown by the early USSR&#39;s backing of, for instance, the Turkish Nationalists who ended up brutalising Turkish communists and, also, by the perpetuation of small scale free enterprise throughout the Eastern bloc. I mean, essentially, the practical programme becomes one where big Industry is Nationalised and small scale capital operations are left alone....similar to past Labour Party policy.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
It was the same as those nobles who found a new niche within capitalism.

However, there&#39;s quite a difference between a few former aristocrats jumping ship and basing your programme on an appeal to an opposition class. And, additionally, in France at least, most of those nobles ended up showing their true alliances....mainly when Jacobian radicalism was at its most powerful.


[email protected]
Essentially yes. Lenin lived when the rise of the labour aristocracy could no longer be hidden. Suddenly privileged workers were living at a standard that had previously been reserved for the petit-bourgeois professionals.

Two things though.

Firstly, the objective relations to production didn&#39;t change, which is what is important. I mean, take for example the French Revolution (1789), plenty of emerging French capitalists bought their way into the aristocracy in the years leading up to that event....but when push came to shove, their still sided with the forces of capital over the decaying old order. So, even if we accept that millions of people are "bought off", then one would assume that their objective relationship to the means of production would eventually be a deciding factor.

Secondly, the living standards of said "petit-bourgeois professionals" hasn&#39;t stagnated. That is, their living standard has risen too. So, essentially, whilst at one time standard X was the standard of the "petit-bourgeois professional", now it&#39;s the standard of your average worker....and standard Y is now the standard of the "petit-bourgeois professional".

And, not only that, you seem to be forgetting that whilst, as any person over 40 will tell you, the price of basic necessities (food and so on) has gone up, the price of other stuff has fallen drastically. That is, the amount of labour needed to produce these things has declined....so, now, that&#39;s why, for instance, most people can afford computers.

Plus, of course, rather than having been placated by ruling class handouts, the working class has collectively struggled for concrete gains. And that, in and of itself, reflects a certain amount of class consciousness....which is why, for instance, you&#39;ll meet some pretty socially conservative folks who&#39;ll you&#39;ll think are about as progressive as a shoelace, but, nevertheless, they&#39;ll be very loyal to their Union and their fellow workers.

Indeed, I think in the piece we are reading, Lenin terms this type of thing as "Trade Union consciousness". And, if it were the case that workers have been "bought off", then this kind of organic and natural consciousness wouldn&#39;t arise....because, in affect, it is the result of real life class struggle.

And, not only that, but if it were the case that the lines between the petty-bourgeois and the working class were virtually invisible, then it would show in everyday life. But I assure you, wherever you drink, after a few start talking to, preferably, one of the older fellas about the difference between where you are and the "posh end"....and you&#39;ll see that most people, bar yourself, seem to have a decent understanding that there&#39;s a concrete difference between the living standards of workers and the rest.

Put simply, it seems to me that it&#39;s only radicals that seem to notice this bloated standard of living. Both myself and just about every person who I&#39;ve talked to about this kind of stuff, thinks that there&#39;s quite a difference between the living standards of workers and the living standards of professionals.

I mean, for fucks sake, over here you can tell straight off if a place is a predominantly working class area....because all the houses will be terraces. Where as, "petit-bourgeois professionals" live in detached/semi-detached houses. Now that is a difference in living standards....and quite a big one too.


ComradeOm
You’re forgetting a little thing I like to call class analysis. Why would a member of the proletariat align themselves with a class that has diametrically opposing aims to the workers?

Uh no, I&#39;m forgetting nothing. I&#39;ve already said that, unlike Lenin, I don&#39;t consider Kautsky and his ilk to be workers in any sense of the word. Those folks wouldn&#39;t know a Pub from a Bar. <_<

And, as for my example and your commenting about my forgetfulness, well I think the "why" is pretty obvious....and it has little to do with "bribery". That is, plenty of people move up or down the "social ladder" over the course of their lives....and, personally, I don&#39;t get why one would call it class mobility when, say, Alan Sugar enters the bourgeois where as it&#39;s "bribery" when a Labour MP does.

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by Lenin
This pamphlet was written with an eye to the tsarist censorship. Hence, I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in an allegorical language—in that accursed Aesopian language—to which tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up the pen to write a “legal” work.
This passage should be highlighted, bolded, and underlined&#33;

Lenin is saying that this pamphlet only deals with economic questions and barely touches on political questions.

So if you want to get more deeply into political issues like the division between oppressor and oppressed countries, social-chauvinism, the inevitability of world war under imperialism, the bribery of the labor aristocracy, you&#39;d have to read other works, like "The Collapse of the Second International," "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism," "A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism," and a few others.

This work deals mostly with the formation of monopolies, the fusion of productive capital with finance capital, the rise of a financial oligarchy, and economic things like that.

In addition to reading the pamphlet, the study group should discuss news articles about imperialism TODAY, from the Iraq war to hedge funds to US dollar hegemony. The point of studying is to better explain current conditions and history, not to get better at trumping people in online debates about the "holy texts."

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
At the very least, I suppose Om and I will enter into another fricking mammoth discussion at some point.
Well it has been a while :lol:


After all, in any field, if one were to propose a series of new hypothesise, they would need to draw evidence from a variety of places....and spend years, even decades, thoroughly researching the topic.
To be honest I have no idea how much research Hobson put into his work Imperialism. However considering his reputation, the praise it garnered and fact that it had been published for over a decade before Lenin wrote his own work; I don’t see the problem here. AFAIK no one has disputed the figures… after all the territorial gains made by the European empires are both self-evident and well documented.


Well, "small proprietors" as a social group, are pretty damn "monolithic". And whilst, to an extent, I&#39;d agree that for short periods of time interests can and do overlap, I think trying to create a political programme that brings together class enemies strikes me as remarkably naive....or worse.

I mean, you yourself have commented on how the influence of the Peasantry and their distinct interests created problems within the Bolshevik Party, so I don&#39;t see how you can fail to realise that an alliance between two opposing classes wouldn&#39;t become troublesome.
Well if I’ve ever had one criticism of Lenin it was his eminent practicality. Both the peasants and elements of the petit-bourgeois are in conflict with the bourgeoisie and are, in theory, potential allies of the proletariat.

Its also useful to note that this preface was written after the Revolution.


So, even if we accept that millions of people are "bought off", then one would assume that their objective relationship to the means of production would eventually be a deciding factor.
I wouldn’t be in total agreement with the analogy to France but you have one thing right – when “push came to shove” class interests are overriding. In the case of Russia the Bolsheviks received the support of almost the entirety of the proletariat – including former labour opportunists.


Secondly, the living standards of said "petit-bourgeois professionals" hasn&#39;t stagnated. That is, their living standard has risen too. So, essentially, whilst at one time standard X was the standard of the "petit-bourgeois professional", now it&#39;s the standard of your average worker....and standard Y is now the standard of the "petit-bourgeois professional".
To be honest I think you’re reading too much into this one statement. Lenin was merely commenting, as I read it, on those workers that were living in conditions that were comparable to those enjoyed by professionals. He wasn’t talking about improved living standards across the board but rather a specific group workers.

But let’s hold off with the whole imperialism discussion until the group has read the piece ;)


I&#39;ve already said that, unlike Lenin, I don&#39;t consider Kautsky and his ilk to be workers in any sense of the word.
Both Kautsky and Lenin were workers in exactly the same way as Marx and Engels were.


That is, plenty of people move up or down the "social ladder" over the course of their lives....
The "social ladder"… I hope you’re not channelling the spirit of Weber :lol:

Those who climb the "social ladder", such as Sugar, have become members of the bourgeoisie. Opportunists within the labour movement are still, according to their role within the relations of production, still part of the proletariat.

[More Fire for the People]

I would first of all say how refreshing it is to read Lenin. Lenin’s position amongst Russian literature is a rare one, the position of readability.

I disagree with AS’s position on hegemony and agree with Lenin’s concept of ‘stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois…’ though I would not have used the same phraseology. The workers of the advanced capitalist countries introject aspects of bourgeois ideology as their own. An example would be workers who believe that “hard work” and “patriotism” pay off. These workers have not necessarily become bourgeoisie but have developed a false consciousness of the world — akin to religion.


Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their “own” country) it is possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is just what the capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing: they are bribing them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.

When a worker drives a nice car, owns his home, etc. he no longer feels like a worker but like a member of the ‘middle-class’ [a false class]. Traditional methods of obtaining workers’ rights are no longer relevant in Euro-American capitalist world as there is no desire for such things amongst the ‘Protestant, white, male’ worker.

Lenin’s writing on concentration of the means of production seems entirely redundant in modern society. It seems so obvious, so evident to us because we live it. What I find amazing is that Lenin considered 1916’s development of the corporation as ‘the highest stage of capitalism’. Wow, how wrong. Corporations have been suppressed and regrouped again and again. The government breaks up corporations when it’s in its interests of capital-at-large while later the governments favours and even allies with corporations in order to save capital-at-large.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)Well if I’ve ever had one criticism of Lenin it was his eminent practicality.[/b]

Perhaps. But, there are different kinds of practicality....and when offering practical solutions, it&#39;s worth remembering that. To use an analogy here, if you puncture your tyre on your bike, you have two practical solutions: (1) a quick fix where you just patch up the inner tube; or (2), taking the wheel on and putting in a completely new inner tube.

Both options are practical, but a patch-work job, which is essentially the kind of "practicality" Lenin espoused, will likely give you problems in the future....certainly more problems than if you take option 2. And in this case, the problems came later when the Bolshevik Parties multi-class orientation led to a lot of internal strife about the economic direction Russia would take....with working class economic policy being defeated.

And, likewise, it was "practical" to support the Turkish Nationalists in their struggles. Indeed, in terms of gaining influence in that region, it was undeniably the best option. Yet, by supporting forces that took great delight in butchering rank and file communists, that eminently "practical" solution removed it&#39;s mask and revealed itself as outright opportunism and complete betrayal.

And that&#39;s essentially what this boils down too. Are we going to try and create a scenario where the interests of the working class are emphasised? Or, alternatively, is the "practicality" we emphasise going to promote short term gains and multi-class alliances and then, at a later time, remove it&#39;s mask, reveal itself as political opportunism and sink its fangs into our buttocks?


Originally posted by ComradeOm+--> (ComradeOm)He wasn’t talking about improved living standards across the board but rather a specific group workers.[/b]

Yah, maybe. But, I&#39;m sort of lost because I don&#39;t really get who these "specific workers" are. As I said, I wouldn&#39;t call Kautsky and his ilk workers, nor would I call Union bureaucrats workers and so on. So, really, unless you&#39;re talking about rank and file workers in this context, as you&#39;ve done in the past, then I don&#39;t get the point.

After all, there&#39;s seems to be a battle over the interpretation of this. Some folks seem to think the "bribed" sector just involves labour officialdom....where as others think it covers far more people. Personally, I don&#39;t see how anyone is "bribed", but still, the second definition has some rather strange theoretical and practical results in my opinion.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Both Kautsky and Lenin were workers in exactly the same way as Marx and Engels were.

That is, none of them were workers....though Charlie did like to call himself a "head worker" every now and then.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Opportunists within the labour movement are still, according to their role within the relations of production, still part of the proletariat.

Nope. They are petty-bourgeois, like those in Management, because their relationship to the means of production is, generally speaking, to facilitate the smooth running of capitalism and to protect bourgeois society. Labour MP&#39;s however, are as bourgeois as they get....because their social role is to Administer British capitalism.

Pretty much anyone who has a formal position within the "labour movement" is no longer a worker in my opinion. And that&#39;s why, I don&#39;t consider these people to be "bribed workers" but part of the Management structure of capitalism.


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
....and agree with Lenin’s concept of ‘stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois…’....

Yeah, but if they are still workers then you really need to show how Joe the Union bureaucrat produces surplus value. If Joe&#39;s a Shop Steward and still works, then he&#39;s working class....but if he&#39;s just a paid bureaucrat, then I don&#39;t see how he isn&#39;t part of the Management structure.

In terms of the general point Lenin&#39;s making, I sort of agree. But, like yourself, I&#39;d rather it be phrased better....I&#39;d say rather than anyone getting "bribed", the traditional Union structure has been incorporated into the running of capitalism and the bureaucrats have been added to it&#39;s Management structure.

Lenin&#39;s explanation of why that happened is, from memory, different to mine. But, been as that is something that is discussed in this work, then I suppose we&#39;ll discuss that at a later point.


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
The workers of the advanced capitalist countries introject aspects of bourgeois ideology as their own.

I dunno how closely you could relate that to the functioning of Imperialism myself. Essentially because "workers introject aspects of bourgeois ideology" in non-Imperialist countries as well. Personally, I&#39;d say that rather than being something causes this, Imperialism is simply something that is representative of this.

That is, in my opinion, American workers identifying with the Empire is not because of Imperialism in and of itself, it just a vessel which the bourgeois uses to impose its ideology. So, essentially, I&#39;d say that in a base and economic sense, Imperialism doesn&#39;t cause this....it&#39;s just something that can be used to facilitate bourgeois ideological dominance.


Hopscotch [email protected]
When a worker drives a nice car, owns his home, etc. he no longer feels like a worker but like a member of the ‘middle-class’ [a false class].

I don&#39;t see that myself. As I said in my previous post, have a few drinks with some workers who "drive a nice car" and "own their own home" and you&#39;ll find that they do still consider themselves to be working class. That is, someone who owns a two bedroom terrace and drives a Fiesta, in my experience, doesn&#39;t think of themselves as "middle class".


Hopscotch Anthill
Traditional methods of obtaining workers’ rights are no longer relevant in Euro-American capitalist world....

People have stopped striking where you are? :blink:

[More Fire for the People]

I dunno how closely you could relate that to the functioning of Imperialism myself. Essentially because "workers introject aspects of bourgeois ideology" in non-Imperialist countries as well. Personally, I&#39;d say that rather than being something causes this, Imperialism is simply something that is representative of this.
I agree that it does not necessarily require &#39;imperialism&#39;. Capitalists create their own hegemony from day one — the rulebooks of religion, the schools, the libraries, etc. are all turned into defence stations for capitalism. IMO, imperialism augments bourgeois hegemony by making the war of &#39;defence&#39;, i.e. imperialism, the war of the whole &#39;nation&#39;.



I don&#39;t see that myself. As I said in my previous post, have a few drinks with some workers who "drive a nice car" and "own their own home" and you&#39;ll find that they do still consider themselves to be working class. That is, someone who owns a two bedroom terrace and drives a Fiesta, in my experience, doesn&#39;t think of themselves as "middle class".
Perhaps the situation is different in your area. However, I would say it is still true that when it comes to election year suddenly everyone is &#39;middle class&#39; and has &#39;middle class&#39; interests.


People have stopped striking where you are? :blink:
Umm, actually yes. The only strike in the past fiver years or so in my area was the May Day 2006 strike. But I was talking about how richer, but working class, Anglo-Saxon males favour neoliberalism and the free market.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by AS
Perhaps. But, there are different kinds of practicality....
Actually there’s one type and that’s the type where ideological stances are adapted to practical considerations. Obviously the degree to which practical concerns intrude are important.

On the Turkish case, I believe that this was a matter of Ataturk (one smart bastard) manipulating the new Soviet government. Don’t quote me on that though.


And that&#39;s essentially what this boils down too. Are we going to try and create a scenario where the interests of the working class are emphasised? Or, alternatively, is the "practicality" we emphasise going to promote short term gains and multi-class alliances and then, at a later time, remove it&#39;s mask, reveal itself as political opportunism and sink its fangs into our buttocks?
Vivid image :o

Let’s be clear on one thing though. Lenin’s practicality was focused on creating the proletarian state. He emphasised time and time again the need for the proletariat to rule over the other classes. Any alliances with other classes or factions would be a matter of convenience. The alternative is to stand outside in the cold with our “pure” cause… as if fortune has ever favoured the “right”.


Nope. They are petty-bourgeois, like those in Management, because their relationship to the means of production is, generally speaking, to facilitate the smooth running of capitalism and to protect bourgeois society.
Well that depends on the level of union officials of course. But I’d apply the term “labour aristocrat” to all privileged workers. Of course today in the West that pretty much covers the vast majority of the proletariat.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jul 10 2006, 07:24 PM--> (Hopscotch Anthill &#064; Jul 10 2006, 07:24 PM)What I find amazing is that Lenin considered 1916’s development of the corporation as ‘the highest stage of capitalism’. Wow, how wrong. Corporations have been suppressed and regrouped again and again. The government breaks up corporations when it’s in its interests of capital-at-large while later the governments favours and even allies with corporations in order to save capital-at-large.[/b]

Actually, something I&#39;ve been really wanting to read up on are the Structuralist theories on the function of the State. From what I know, which admittedly isn&#39;t a whole lot, they argue that whilst the State may appear to work against the immediate interests of capital from time to time, it does this to ensure the long term prosperity of capitalism....of course it&#39;s a bit more complex than that, but it seems quite similar to what you said above.


Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)The enormous growth of industry and the remarkably rapid concentration of production in ever-larger enterprises are one of the most characteristic features of capitalism.[/b]

Anyway, I finally got round to reading Chapter 1. And, first off, I&#39;d say, in general, this statement is true....well, accurate is probably a better way of putting it. However, if memory serves me correctly, I&#39;ve previously made posts which point out the exceptions to the general rule of "concentration"....the most prominent exception I know of, would be in the Plumbing Industry.

Additionally, something I&#39;ve noticed is that over the last few years, a trend has emerged that seems to favour "decentralisation". For instance, previously, unless I&#39;m mistaken, there was one National Water Company for the whole of Britain....where as now there are upwards of ten. Down here we have Welsh Water (or something Cymru if that&#39;s what floats your boat <_< ) and there&#39;s Thames Water (?) and so on. And that would apply to telecommunications and so on as well.

That to me perhaps hints that whilst in Lenin&#39;s era there was a tendency towards "concentration", in the present era capitals orientation may have changed slightly. Certainly here in Britain in the 80&#39;s, there was a drive to free up various Markets and remove them from the States grasp....and that drive continues.


[email protected]
The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised.

I honestly don&#39;t see how this process can be described as "the socialisation of production". Could someone perhaps explain that one to me?


Lenin
(2) stopping the supply of labour by means of “alliances” (i.e., of agreements between the capitalists and the trade unions by which the latter permit their members to work only in cartelised enterprises);

You know, this is something that I mainly gathered from watching Mafia films, so I don&#39;t know how accurate it is, but from what I can tell, when the American Mafia involved itself in Unions, it did so, whether directly or indirectly, to benefit certain companies. Again, I don&#39;t know how accurate this is, but I suspect that if there are any serious studies on this, then they&#39;d show that, at times, organised crime worked almost as the Management division of the capitalist class.
_____

That&#39;s all for now, because I just wanted to add my comments on the first chapter....which was very enjoyable considering that most of the time I find Lenin to be needlessly technical and long-winded when discussing stuff. Stalin&#39;s an easy read, because he didn&#39;t have much of a vocabulary and Trotsky&#39;s writing is quite imaginative and enjoyable, but Lenin....phew. <_<

I&#39;ll get back to the debate and Om&#39;s and HA&#39;s comments at a later time, but surprisingly we seem to be almost keeping to schedule with this Study Group. And, as a note, so far only three of us have discussed anything, but if you&#39;ve already read further on and have some comments, do add them....because it would be really nice to have a dozen or so people contributing.

[More Fire for the People]

I honestly don&#39;t see how this process can be described as "the socialisation of production". Could someone perhaps explain that one to me?
Each corporation has a huge amount of people. I would say up to the point that each corporation creates a &#39;little society&#39; of its own. It has its own insurance, clinics, family events, corporate outings, community outreach programs, etc. However, I think Lenin used the term more broadly to mean the greater and greater inclusion of persons into one big business.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+--> (Hopscotch Anthill)IMO, imperialism augments bourgeois hegemony by making the war of &#39;defence&#39;, i.e. imperialism, the war of the whole &#39;nation&#39;.[/b]

Generally speaking, I agree with you here. But, to me, from what I know, it seems that your rejecting a section of Lenin&#39;s analysis here. Granted, I&#39;ve not read the work in full before, but I&#39;ve read a few interpretations of it and Om and I have had a long discussion on it....and these people seem to interpret it as meaning that there is a direct economic link between, for instance, the American working class and American Imperialism.

So, essentially, instead of the ideological paradigms that arise from Imperialism "augmenting bourgeois hegemony", their position seems to be, unless I&#39;m misrepresenting it, that workers in Imperialist Nations have a direct economic interest in the Imperialist conquests of said Nation. How many workers are part of the "privileged" group, is something that&#39;s disputed, Bob Avakian likes to judge based on whether a worker lives in the "suburbs" or the "city", but other than that, there doesn&#39;t seem to be much dispute about the central premise of the argument.

Though, of course, there&#39;s a heck of a lot of interpretation involved here, with the following being perhaps the most "liberal" interpretation I&#39;ve seen:


Originally posted by Communist Party Alliance+--> (Communist Party Alliance)Some people claim that the working class of a developed capitalist country as a whole shares in the exploitation of colonial-type countries. Is this true?

No. Super-profits from the exploitation of the working people of colonial-type countries go to the capitalists of the developed capitalist countries concerned. While a small portion of these super-profits may be used to bribe a stratum of highly- paid workers (mainly the officials in the labour movement who act as agents of capital) the workers as a whole receive only the value of their labour power in wages and do not share in the super-profits.

Nevertheless, the existence of the small stratum of workers bribed by imperialist super-profits (the so-called &#39;labour aristocracy&#39;) creates an objective split in the working class which complicates the development of the socialist movement.

For the most part, however, the fact that the standard of living of the British workers has risen over the past hundred years is not because they receive in wages more than the value of their labour-power, but because the value of their labour- power has increased. A considerable part of the super-profits from colonial-type countries has been used to accumulate capital and mechanise production at home, so that productivity has risen and with it the &#39;degree of civilisation&#39; which contributes to the determination of the value of labour power. In other words, total production has risen very considerably over the last century and the working class has been accorded a minor portion of this in the form of increased real wages. However, the share of total production received in wages by the working class has fallen, so that the exploitation of the British working class has increased over this period.[/b]

http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/marxism/Cl3.html

But, really, this is something that will likely be discussed more at a later point. And, as a note, after a quick browse over the page I linked, they seem to have a half-decent glossary of some of the terms Lenin uses....so if anyone is a bit lost with this or that term, that page may be useful.


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
Umm, actually yes. The only strike in the past fiver years or so in my area was the May Day 2006 strike.

Shit. I mean where I am, is a pretty small city, tiny actually, but still over the last few years there have been two pretty large strike actions here....the IT workers strike a couple of years ago and the Teachers strike just before Easter. And, through the grapevine, I seem to remember something about quite a bit of tension and maybe even a few walkouts during the construction of the New Stadium.

And on a wider scale, I&#39;ve heard about some pretty big strikes in Ireland, dockworkers maybe, there was the strike action up a Heathrow and other stuff that I&#39;m forgetting. And this is in an era were labour militancy is at a low....so I don&#39;t really see the basis for your arguments. Though, as you say, it may well be a geographical thing; though I would have thought that the stuff with the Delta (?) workers in Michigan (?) was notable. Unless that&#39;s out of your area?


Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill
But I was talking about how richer, but working class, Anglo-Saxon males favour neoliberalism and the free market.

I&#39;ve never come across that myself. Indeed, the sentiment I tend to find when I chat with someone who&#39;s a worker and "likes" the Conservative Party, is one of a kind political disaffection. That is, they don&#39;t "like" the Conservative Party or their policies in any significant way, it&#39;s just they&#39;ll say stuff like "I&#39;d rather have a bastard that was honest about being as bastard, like Thatcher, than a bastard who lies about being a bastard, like Blair". And, to me, that doesn&#39;t seem like a deeper social phenomena.


Originally posted by ComradeOm
Don’t quote me on that though.

Don&#39;t worry, I won&#39;t. <_<

I actually read a pretty decent account of this once, but where I read it I can&#39;t remember. If I remember though, I&#39;ll link it for you....because it was pretty good.

As for further discussion on Russia, the revolution and so on, if you don&#39;t mind, I&#39;ll leave that for now. I&#39;d don&#39;t have the time, energy or desire to discuss that at the moment....so I&#39;ll at least be trying to keep on topic. Probably without a whole lot of success. <_<


[email protected]
Of course today in the West that pretty much covers the vast majority of the proletariat.

Ok. But, answer this for me, is this "privilege" the result of "capitalist bribery" or the gains made by class struggle? Because, to me, the answer to that would go a long way to provide solutions to the eternal question....the question being, of course, to borrow a famous phrase, what is to be done?

And, on top of that, the definition of "privilege" seems somewhat vague to me. I mean, throughout the existence of the Eastern bloc, it is well known that living standards were below the levels of the West. However, homes in, for instance, Poland, were decorated in the most fantastic manner....they didn&#39;t have carpets, they had solid oak (?) floors, no wallpaper instead stencilled walls and so on. So, essentially, would that have made Polish workers more "privileged" in this aspect of their lives than their Western counterparts?


Hopscotch Anthill
I would say up to the point that each corporation creates a &#39;little society&#39; of its own.

I got you. It&#39;s like, I suppose, the old Mining communities and the various Workingman&#39;s Clubs around....fuck they&#39;re great. <_<

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I don&#39;t see that myself. As I said in my previous post, have a few drinks with some workers who "drive a nice car" and "own their own home" and you&#39;ll find that they do still consider themselves to be working class. That is, someone who owns a two bedroom terrace and drives a Fiesta, in my experience, doesn&#39;t think of themselves as "middle class".

In America they do. I&#39;ve even seen the bourgeois media refer to "Detroit&#39;s blue collar middle class auto workers"&#33;&#33;

[More Fire for the People]

And this is in an era were labour militancy is at a low....so I don&#39;t really see the basis for your arguments. Though, as you say, it may well be a geographical thing; though I would have thought that the stuff with the Delta (?) workers in Michigan (?) was notable. Unless that&#39;s out of your area?

You are right, I am focusing way too much on a particular geographical region; specifically, Northwest Arkansas. The region is being quickly transformed from a rural agrarian-based economy into a urban center for Wal-Mart. 10 years ago this region was predominantly composed of white Anglo-Saxon farmers. But Wal-Mart encouraged businesses to relocate here and we&#39;ve seen a migration of African Americans and Hispanics into the region to work for these businesses. All the while Wal-Mart is creating its own culture: building churches, synagogues, art centers, etc. It&#39;s even taking over public facilities like Bentonville High School. BHS has a smaller student population than neighbouring schools but it is a whole lot huger. It&#39;s almost the size of a small university and has its own art gallery. Strikes have probablly not occured here, yet, because of the rapid modernization.

Earlier, I said "Traditional methods of obtaining workers’ rights are no longer relevant in Euro-American capitalist world as there is no desire for such things amongst the ‘Protestant, white, male’ worker." and I use a particular case as an example. I should have said something like: Hegemony in Euro-American capitalism elimates the notion of Protestant, white, male worker by making him &#39;middle-class&#39;. White males are actually more likely to be drown up from the working class into the ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. There incomes are not dependent on a living wage and a strike but rather attending corporate outings and voting Republican.


I&#39;ve never come across that myself. Indeed, the sentiment I tend to find when I chat with someone who&#39;s a worker and "likes" the Conservative Party, is one of a kind political disaffection. That is, they don&#39;t "like" the Conservative Party or their policies in any significant way, it&#39;s just they&#39;ll say stuff like "I&#39;d rather have a bastard that was honest about being as bastard, like Thatcher, than a bastard who lies about being a bastard, like Blair". And, to me, that doesn&#39;t seem like a deeper social phenomena.
I think that this has more to do, as CDL said, with the difference between European means of hegemony and American means. In America you can find the most destitute of [generally white] peoples who consider themselves middle-class Republicans because: (1) educational institutions assert a working class does not exist; (2) preachers assert that the poor are sinners [ and I&#39;m no sinner&#33; ]; (3) the media portrays the working class as the &#39;middle class&#39;.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 11 2006, 01:30 PM

I don&#39;t see that myself. As I said in my previous post, have a few drinks with some workers who "drive a nice car" and "own their own home" and you&#39;ll find that they do still consider themselves to be working class. That is, someone who owns a two bedroom terrace and drives a Fiesta, in my experience, doesn&#39;t think of themselves as "middle class".

In America they do. I&#39;ve even seen the bourgeois media refer to "Detroit&#39;s blue collar middle class auto workers"&#33;&#33;
It varies. It&#39;s commonly said that in opinion polls most people in the U.S. describe themselves as "middle class". But that&#39;s when the only options are rich, middle class, and poor. When "working class" is given as an option the results shift.

Some workers in the U.S. certainly do consider themselves middle-class; but this doesn&#39;t necessarily include everyone who owns their own home (outside New York City that isn&#39;t a mark of tremendous privilege.)



(A.S.)
I&#39;ve never come across that myself. Indeed, the sentiment I tend to find when I chat with someone who&#39;s a worker and "likes" the Conservative Party, is one of a kind political disaffection. That is, they don&#39;t "like" the Conservative Party or their policies in any significant way, it&#39;s just they&#39;ll say stuff like "I&#39;d rather have a bastard that was honest about being as bastard, like Thatcher, than a bastard who lies about being a bastard, like Blair". And, to me, that doesn&#39;t seem like a deeper social phenomena.
(Hopscotch)
I think that this has more to do, as CDL said, with the difference between European means of hegemony and American means. In America you can find the most destitute of [generally white] peoples who consider themselves middle-class Republicans because: (1) educational institutions assert a working class does not exist; (2) preachers assert that the poor are sinners [ and I&#39;m no sinner&#33; ]; (3) the media portrays the working class as the &#39;middle class&#39;.

I disagree. I&#39;ve seen in the U.S. the same thing A.S. describes in Britain, and I think this is one of the similarities between the U.S. and Britain (of course there are differences too.)

Most workers who vote Republican - or Democratic - are voting for the lesser evil. They know it&#39;s an evil, and some may decide the other one is lesser next time. For example, when Schwarzenegger was elected with some workers&#39; suppport - including some Black and Latino workers - it was as retaliation for the austerity budgets imposed by Democratic Governor Davis.

Really, the "left" is more tied to the capitalist parties than most workers. For example above, where Hopscotch refers to this problem solely as one of workers voting Republican. This necessarily implies (without stating it or probably being consciously aware of the assumption) that the Democrats are permanently the lesser evil, and a worker who votes Democratic is displaying greater class-consciousness&#33;

This is probably because salaried professionals of the "new middle class" receive a lot more crumbs from the bosses&#39; table than most workers. They benefit, not only from imperialism, but also from the bosses&#39; offensive against workers domestically. It&#39;s in their interest to assert workers are overprivileged.

In contrast, workers....the economic trends identified by Lenin haven&#39;t been able to proceed unobstructed or unmodified. One of the major developments we&#39;ve seen since his time is the explosion of the colonial revolution. This has affected imperialist superprofits and therefore the possibility of a super-privileged working class (as distinct from a privileged labor aristocracy - part of the working class.)

The U.S. came out of WWII with a near-monopoly of the world market (European and Japanese industry destroyed.) Enabling them to housebreak the labor movement.

But as its rivals have rebuilt, they&#39;ve lost that monopoly. Increasing competition has forced them to undertake an offensive against the living standards of the working class.

That working people aren&#39;t fighting more, isn&#39;t because most people are so happy with the current situation. On the contrary, working people know we&#39;ve lost a lot since the late 70s.

It&#39;s contain more of the truth to say that people feel too beaten down to fight, too concentrated on personal and family survival. But there&#39;s probably a lot of reasons. Another is the difficulty of developing new methods of struggle, new organisational structures and leadership since the 50s-70s labor movement was so unaccustomed to serious conflict.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 10:41 AM

I honestly don&#39;t see how this process can be described as "the socialisation of production". Could someone perhaps explain that one to me?
Each corporation has a huge amount of people. I would say up to the point that each corporation creates a &#39;little society&#39; of its own. It has its own insurance, clinics, family events, corporate outings, community outreach programs, etc. However, I think Lenin used the term more broadly to mean the greater and greater inclusion of persons into one big business.
This one&#39;s probably unclear only because we don&#39;t remember how it used to be. When there were much larger numbers of small and proprietor-run businesses.

Clearly it would have been much harder to nationalize those. And it&#39;s much easier to nationalize large corporations run by hired managers.

[Severian]

Originally posted by fats+Jul 10 2006, 11:28 AM--> (fats @ Jul 10 2006, 11:28 AM)
Lenin
This pamphlet was written with an eye to the tsarist censorship. Hence, I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in an allegorical language—in that accursed Aesopian language—to which tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up the pen to write a “legal” work.
This passage should be highlighted, bolded, and underlined&#33;

Lenin is saying that this pamphlet only deals with economic questions and barely touches on political questions. [/b]
Right, absolutely.

Or to put it another way: The pamphlet lays out some of the underlying facts - and leaves it to the reader to draw the conclusions.

I guess this thread is also supposed to cover Chapter 1? Well, that one basically just lays out the fact of increasing concentration of capital and monopoly.

Which has certainly continued from Lenin&#39;s time down to today, despite the anti-trust laws. At one time there were many U.S. companies manufacturing cars; today there are only 3 (and one of them has merged with the larger German company Daimler-Benz.) Standard Oil was broken up into several pieces by antitrust regulators; but many of them have merged again.

So, what&#39;s the political implication of this reality?


In addition to reading the pamphlet, the study group should discuss news articles about imperialism TODAY, from the Iraq war to hedge funds to US dollar hegemony. The point of studying is to better explain current conditions and history, not to get better at trumping people in online debates about the "holy texts."

Fortunately this thread already has some discussion of current conditions. IMO everyone should feel free to bring in relevant facts about the world today.

****

It&#39;s important to understand Lenin&#39;s method of analysis, not just the particular conclusions arrived at. If you have a solid method of analysis, you can apply that to many situations.

Proof of what was the true social, or rather, the true class character of the war is naturally to be found, not in the diplomatic history of the war, but in an analysis of the objective position of the ruling classes in all the belligerent countries. In order to depict this objective position one must not take examples or isolated data (in view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition), but all the data on the basis of economic life in all the belligerent countries and the whole world.
(from the preface to the French and German editions.

In other words, Lenin derived his conclusions from the overall world economic and political situation, first and foremost. We&#39;ll see that in practice throughout the pamphlet.

[Janus]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)And, as a note, so far only three of us have discussed anything, but if you&#39;ve already read further on and have some comments, do add them....because it would be really nice to have a dozen or so people contributing.[/b]

Well, that’s because you guys took off with the heavy debate from the get-go. I suppose that may have excluded a few would-be posters.


Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+--> (Armchair Socialism)For instance, previously, unless I&#39;m mistaken, there was one National Water Company for the whole of Britain....where as now there are upwards of ten. Down here we have Welsh Water (or something Cymru if that&#39;s what floats your boat) and there&#39;s Thames Water (?) and so on. And that would apply to telecommunications and so on as well.[/b]

I can’t speak for the UK but in the US, the reason why a lot of these monopolies no longer exist is due a lot of the trust busting that went on during the early 20th century. Also, it’s quite difficult for one corporation to hold onto dominance in as large a sector as water or oil for long.

But like Severian said, a lot of these corporations are coming together.

Though monopolies do develop sometimes, Microsoft for example, and takeovers are quite common, most markets or business sectors are dominated by a few large corporations.



Originally posted by Armchair Socialism
It&#39;s like, I suppose, the old Mining communities
Yeah, if you have ever read October Sky, the author clearly describes how life pretty much revolved around the mining company. Some are still around.



[email protected]
It varies.
Yes, I agree. Also, a lot of workers are able to join the middle class these days because their spouses also work


Severian
On the contrary, working people know we&#39;ve lost a lot since the late 70s.
I definitely agree. Conditions have declined quite a bit since then.



Now as for the work Imperialism itself, I think Lenin explained fairly accurately the situation as in how these corporation operated and had come together in order to cut off competition. Of course, his explanation of the horizontal and vertical expansion of these corporations shouldn’t be new to anyone who has studied the Gilded Age.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Okay, it&#39;s almost Monday again, so I started a thread ready for the discussion on Chapter 2 [here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=52730)]. Maybe now we should move this thread back to the Study Groups sub-forum so that it doesn&#39;t get lost. That is, we discuss the current Chapter we&#39;re reading in Learning....and then, after the thread goes dead, we move it back to the Study Groups sub-forum in order to "preserve" it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Moved to the Study Group.