[STUDY GROUP] Imperialism discussion

[Amusing Scrotum]

Apparently, if you use IE this chapter goes all messy, so Taboo Tongue has kindly posted it for all us IE neanderthals; here (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52251&view=findpost&p=1292107559). So, without further delay, let us begin.

[Severian]

(Lenin): Chamberlain advocated imperialism as a “true, wise and economical policy”, and pointed particularly to the German, American and Belgian competition which Great Britain was encountering in the world market. Salvation lies in monopoly, said the capitalists as they formed cartels, syndicates and trusts. Salvation lies in monopoly, echoed the political leaders of the bourgeoisie, hastening to appropriate the parts of the world not yet shared out.

One modern form of this: the misnamed "free trade agreements" - more accurately, trading blocs.

NAFTA is one of these blocs; it lowers some trade barriers internally, while keeping them up against rival economic powers. The EU is another.

Even some economically dependent countries have been promoting their own; MERCOSUR, ASEAN, etc.

****

When Lenin wrote this, not every country was a direct colony, or even clearly in the sphere of influence of one imperialist power. China, for example, was still undivided, under the "Open Door Policy" subject to free exploitation by all the world's capitalists.

But any power which moved to grab China for its sole profit - would bring in rival powers against it. That's what happened to Japan in WWII.

The economically dependent countries of Latin America were "protected" by the Monroe Doctrine.

That's even more true today; nobody can grab up some weak country without bringing in its protectors. Even influencing someplace into one sphere involves moving 'em out of another - as with the recent proxy wars between the U.S. and France in Africa.

And as usual, the spheres of influence are not proportional to economic strength. While the U.S. has the largest single economy, its political influence and military strength are wholly disproportionate, dwarfing any combination of rivals. Even the whole EU, which outweighs it economically.

That's gotta chafe.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence—the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.[/b]

Although this isn't really related to Lenin's point, because times have moved on, I read a piece by Chris Harman, SWP (UK) theoretician, where he said the following:


Harman
Here was a situation similar to that in Central America, but very different to that in much of South America, where as Claudio Katz has recently pointed out,7 the bourgeoisie has often been able to assert a degree of autonomy from US imperialism by playing off one imperialist power against another (which is why, in my view, it is a travesty of Marxism to apply the term ‘semi-colonial’ to countries such as Brazil or Argentina)8.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292134576 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=53876&view=findpost&p=1292134576)

Personally, I don't know the validity of either Harman's or Katz's opinion on this matter, but it's an interesting point anyway....possibly worth further discussion. And, what's more, it has implications with regards Lenin's thesis, that the World is effectively all divied up between the major Imperialist powers.
_____

That's about it from this Chapter, it's not the longest and, essentially, there's not a lot, as far as I can see, that can be discussed. It's basically a Chapter of facts and figures. So, with that in mind, perhaps we can try to progress a bit quicker this week, reading the next Chapter by, say, Monday?

On a side note, and really a minor point, it's nice to see Lenin refer to British Imperialism as the Imperialism of Great Britain. Mainly, because over the last decade or so, Nationalists, Scottish ones in particular, have been trying to blame the crimes of British Imperialism on England alone. Which is a pretty shady form of historical revision.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 17 2006, 07:00 AM
Personally, I don't know the validity of either Harman's or Katz's opinion on this matter, but it's an interesting point anyway....possibly worth further discussion. And, what's more, it has implications with regards Lenin's thesis, that the World is effectively all divied up between the major Imperialist powers.
It's an interesting question, which has been raised by others. Ernest Mandel, IIRC, once proposed a category of "semi-industrialized dependent countries" or something like that.

It's clear that a significant degree of industrialization has occurred in a number of countries, which has certain implications. Makes life harder for the imperialists, increases the numbers of wage-workers in those countries, etc.

IMO: 1. We are fundamentally still living in the epoch of imperialism, the world is characterized by the same features Lenin is describing.

2. Even the industrialization of, say, Brazil or even South Korea takes dependent forms. South Korea's the greatest success story - thanks to U.S. trade policies which amounted to a tremendous anti-NK and anti-Chinese subsidy. But since the Asian financial crisis, some of its biggest "Chaebol" have ended up in hock to the imperialists.

That's just a thumbnail sketch, but basically I'd argue semicolony still applies. Growth alone won't change the dependency - it'll take social transformation, that is revolution.

As far as implications about whether the world's still divvied up....I'm not sure what you're getting at. Brazil is definitely still under the Monroe doctrine, and South Korea under U.S. military protection....its military even subject to U.S. command.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Growth alone won't change the dependency - it'll take social transformation, that is revolution.[/b]

What about Canada? Or, for that matter, Australia? There was no major "social transformation" or a significant War of National Liberation in either of these countries, yet one could hardly class them as "semi-colonial"....at least with a straight face. So what reason, other than a combination of economic growth, the rise of an un-dependent bourgeois, and so on, could be used to explain this?

I mean, Scotland, to an extent, could be said to have dependent on English Industrialisation....as could Wales. And some Scottish Nationalists, including self proclaimed Marxists, would ascribe Scotland the status of an English colony. Yet, there is a distinct possibility that Scotland, within the next decade or so, will become a politically and economically Independent State with Imperialist ambitions separate too those of the joint English and Welsh State....which will, probably, have to have a new name. What would be the explanation of that? Different from, of course, the explanation that a certain amount of growth helps facilitate a move away from dependency; without a "social transformation" of any note.

One factor that may attribute to the ability of a Nation State to escape "dependence", (though the degree of dependence is also important, in my opinion) is the existence of body that can be used to unite the economic interests of a group of Nation States. Like, for instance, the European Union. Which, in my opinion, is the primary reason why smaller and less economically powerful Nation States, like Belgium and Holland, can retain such a prominent place in World politics. And that's also, maybe, a reason why some of the more economically powerful Nation States like, if memory serves me correctly, France and Italy, oppose enlargement of the EU.

Anyway, the point is that I think it's a tad simplistic, and perhaps deterministic, to simply say that it's "only" through "social transformation" that a Nation State can become Independent. Or, at the very least, a lot less dependent.


Severian
As far as implications about whether the world's still divvied up....I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Well, if it is the case that non-Imperialist countries can "play off one imperialist power against another", and I don't know whether this is the case, then Lenin's pretty mechanical conception of the dividing of States, would be less relevant. Meaning, the World isn't as neatly divided as Lenin thinks.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing Scrotum+Aug 22 2006, 12:05 PM--> (Amusing Scrotum @ Aug 22 2006, 12:05 PM)
Severian
Growth alone won't change the dependency - it'll take social transformation, that is revolution.

What about Canada? Or, for that matter, Australia? There was no major "social transformation" or a significant War of National Liberation in either of these countries, yet one could hardly class them as "semi-colonial"....at least with a straight face. So what reason, other than a combination of economic growth, the rise of an un-dependent bourgeois, and so on, could be used to explain this? [/b]
They were both advanced capitalist countries by the time the imperialist phase began. After the American Revolution, Britain began allowing considerable self-rule to its settler colonies (to avoid a repeat.) They were able to have economic policies which facilitated their independent industrial development. Neither was ever like India.

The point in all this is that something changed around the beginning of the 20th century, with the beginning of the imperialist phase of capitalism. Since then, the members of the advanced capitalist club have remained pretty constant.


Well, if it is the case that non-Imperialist countries can "play off one imperialist power against another", and I don't know whether this is the case, then Lenin's pretty mechanical conception of the dividing of States, would be less relevant. Meaning, the World isn't as neatly divided as Lenin thinks.

Oh. I think that does happen to some degree - Iran is certainly trying hard to do it right now. That is one of the differences between the old direct colonialism and present-day neocolonialism, probably.