Is it just me, or....

[Comrade-Z]

It seems to me like an increase of nationalism is gripping the advanced capitalist countries around the globe: the U.S., Britain, Russia (with regards to Chechnya, Georgia, and Nazism in Russia), Poland, France (Le Pen and his ilk), Austria (where the racist extreme right garnered something like 15% of the vote recently), Japan, China, etc.

The more this trend continues, the more likely it is, in my opinion, that the workers of these countries will be, in effect, forcing themselves to learn the lessons of internationalism and communism the hard way--through another (and possibly final) imperialist war among two or more advanced capitalist countries.

Does anyone else see this coming within the next 20 years or so, or is it too soon to declare a trend in this direction?

[Kamraten]

its going to be a violent future yes. but sooner then 20 years.

[YSR]

I disagree, Z.

Quite the opposite, I think this nationalist upsurge recently is a reaction to the fact that the traditional state is quickly becoming obsolete in the face of globalization. As the corporation takes on more and more characteristics that were previously attributed to the state, nationalist forces have attempted to strike back.

[BreadBros]

YSR is dead-on. The upsurge in nationalism is a revolt by a large section of the petty-bourgeoisie over the increased powers of the international corporation and the diminishing role of the state and its beauracratic functions. At least in the advanced capitalist countries.

[Kurt Crover]

I was wondering why you mentioned Britain, because I think the "rise" of the BNP was a lot of hype. In the last election, news outlets (TV, papers etc) were sounding off about the BNP, making it sound as if the BNP will win the election, etc etc. Labour won. Gordon Brown is coming the Premiership of the UK. It'll be interesting to say the least.

[Severian]

It's not just you - plenty of people have noticed this is a time of increasing inter-imperialist tension, potentially leading to another inter-imperialist war.

The first article about this I saw was in 1991 after the first Gulf War; an article titled "The Opening Guns of World War III" in New International ("A magazine of Marxist Politics and Theory") issue #7. That article pointed out that Washington had used that war to strengthen its position in the Middle East against its advanced capitalist competitors - and for that reason, it accurately predicted, Gulf War I's all-embracing coaliton of world powers would not and could not be repeated.

The last is in the current issue of Foreign Affairs - the official publication of the super-establishment Council on Foreign Relations. (It was pointing out in particular what the Middle East has in common with the Balkans and other flashpoints of the First and Second World Wars.)


Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 6 2006, 10:03 PM
It seems to me like an increase of nationalism is gripping the advanced capitalist countries around the globe: the U.S., Britain, Russia (with regards to Chechnya, Georgia, and Nazism in Russia), Poland, France (Le Pen and his ilk), Austria (where the racist extreme right garnered something like 15% of the vote recently), Japan, China, etc.
There's an increase in nationalism in all those countries, but I'm not sure why you describe Russia, Poland and China as advanced capitalist countries.

Aside from the limited success of their regimes' efforts to restore capitalism, how "advanced" are they? Consider per capita GDP: Russia is 84th in the world - after Costa Rica. Poland is 70th, below a number of island colonies. And China is 117th - below Belize and Gabon!
source (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html)

Obviously not imperialist in the Marxist economic sense.


Does anyone else see this coming within the next 20 years or so, or is it too soon to declare a trend in this direction?

It's too soon to guess at the timing for war, but there's definitely a trend towards greater inter-imperialist conflict. That is, rivalry between the advanced capitalist countries of North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, etc.

A number of military interventions have served conflicting interests of these powers: Yugoslavia, different conflicts in Africa, Iraq.....for example, in Iraq Washington is taking control of Europe's and Japan's oil supply, not its own. The U.S. imports relatively little oil from the Middle East. But there's a lot of strategic leverage in controlling other people's oil supply.

This growing rivalry's been evident since the end of the Cold War. Those countries which used to be considered primarily "allies" became primarily competitors....

But to actually go to war, in the nuclear age, and against Washington's massive superiority? Not likely under bourgeois democracy, I think.

So you're right to mention LePen, the Austrian ultraright, etc., as factors representing a danger of inter-imperialist war.

But whether they come to power depends on what the working class does, so trying to predict when or if they will - would be counterproductive, even defeatist.

[Leo]

Obviously not imperialist in the Leninist economic sense.

Quote corrected.

[Marukusu]

...We also have Korea. DPRK says that they want to test their nuclear weapons, which ROK and Japan (and practically everyone else) refuses to comply with.
The next general secretary of the UN is also probably going to be a South Korean, so we can be pretty sure that the UN is going to intervene in a new Korean war just like they did 50 years ago.

[Kurt Crover]

how do you know the UN's next general secretary is going to be a South Korean?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 7 2006, 05:53 AM

Obviously not imperialist in the Leninist economic sense.

Quote corrected.
There's another Marxist economic theory of imperialism? Which explains how a country can be imperialist with a per capita GDP lower than Belize?

I'm not holding my breath for an explanation.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Kurt [email protected] 7 2006, 01:11 PM
how do you know the UN's next general secretary is going to be a South Korean?
He's currently the only contender - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Ki-moon

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 08:31 AM
There's another Marxist economic theory of imperialism? Which explains how a country can be imperialist with a per capita GDP lower than Belize?

I'm not holding my breath for an explanation.
Let me also add to what you are saying Serverian that even though China's GDP is lower than Belize, Belize itself has huge problems. When compared to the "rapid industrialization" and "economic progress" of China, Belize looks like a poor tourist-ran, post-colonial backwater.

[Comrade-Z]

There's an increase in nationalism in all those countries, but I'm not sure why you describe Russia, Poland and China as advanced capitalist countries.

Aside from the limited success of their regimes' efforts to restore capitalism, how "advanced" are they? Consider per capita GDP: Russia is 84th in the world - after Costa Rica. Poland is 70th, below a number of island colonies. And China is 117th - below Belize and Gabon!
source

Obviously not imperialist in the Marxist economic sense.

Perhaps I should clarify:

These countries may not be imperialist yet (although Russia, despite its low GDP, is fairly obviously imperialist, still having a lot of economic hegemony in the Ukraine, Belarussia, the Caucasus region, and the Central Asian republics). However, I think their capitalist classes all desire to be imperialist, and what's more, they are approaching the point when imperialism would be feasible. Russia is already engaging in it. China is making tentative steps towards imperialism with its economic investment in South Asia and elsewhere (especially Africa), although I doubt China is at the point yet where it is ready to endure an inter-imperialist war in order to pursue this policy more aggressively. I'd say give China about 10 years for that. As for Poland, it's in a rather economically dependent position right now, but I could see it gaining more "independence" and vying for more hegemony in Eastern Europe and the Balkans over the next 20 years.

[Leo]

There's another Marxist economic theory of imperialism?

There is Rosa Luxemburg's analysis which was much more accurate than Lenin's in my opinion.

[Comrade Marcel]

GDP means nothing when most of it is sucked out by imperialist countries. Anyone with a brain on their shoulders knows that Russia is way more developed than Costa Rica or the other countries it supposedly lags behind, and that the goods/surplus produced actually STAYS in Russia more than those other countries. The Russian working class is way better off than the Costa Ricans.

[2ormore]

we are going to blow each other

Cool , :lol:

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Comrade-[email protected] 7 2006, 04:01 PM

There's an increase in nationalism in all those countries, but I'm not sure why you describe Russia, Poland and China as advanced capitalist countries.

Aside from the limited success of their regimes' efforts to restore capitalism, how "advanced" are they? Consider per capita GDP: Russia is 84th in the world - after Costa Rica. Poland is 70th, below a number of island colonies. And China is 117th - below Belize and Gabon!
source

Obviously not imperialist in the Marxist economic sense.

Perhaps I should clarify:

These countries may not be imperialist yet (although Russia, despite its low GDP, is fairly obviously imperialist, still having a lot of economic hegemony in the Ukraine, Belarussia, the Caucasus region, and the Central Asian republics). However, I think their capitalist classes all desire to be imperialist, and what's more, they are approaching the point when imperialism would be feasible. Russia is already engaging in it. China is making tentative steps towards imperialism with its economic investment in South Asia and elsewhere (especially Africa), although I doubt China is at the point yet where it is ready to endure an inter-imperialist war in order to pursue this policy more aggressively. I'd say give China about 10 years for that. As for Poland, it's in a rather economically dependent position right now, but I could see it gaining more "independence" and vying for more hegemony in Eastern Europe and the Balkans over the next 20 years.
what about the relationship between Tibet and China?

[Marukusu]

what about the relationship between Tibet and China?

And China and Uighuristan? And China and Inner Mongolia? And China and Taiwan?
I also wonder how China will handle a new Korean war... hell, all of Asia may very well blow up in the next decades or so if things go bad.

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 08:37 AM

what about the relationship between Tibet and China?

And China and Uighuristan? And China and Inner Mongolia? And China and Taiwan?
I also wonder how China will handle a new Korean war... hell, all of Asia may very well blow up in the next decades or so if things go bad.
The problem with all these "China and regional problem X" hyptheticals is that the chance of a general war happening between several other major powers is almost nil. No one's going to risk a huge, catastrophic war with a nuclear-armed China for Tiber or Inner Mongolia.

Same with a new "Korean War"; the Chinese bureacracy has played it very, very conservatively and cautiously with regards to their foreign policy over the last 15-20 years. If the US gets behind a war against North Korea, there is no way that China will risk everything to save a poor, third world country that is almost completely isolated from the rest of the world.

Powerful states are generally not in the business of committing suicide.

[The Bitter Hippy]

i think there's definitely a case for the argument that the major developed nations are far too inter-reliant to risk a war for economic benefit. The days are past when the economic dislocation caused by throwing another imperialist power out of a region and raping it for one's own benefit was worth the rewards.

A war between an overstretched USA and either the expanding european bloc or booming china or any other combination of the three would cost far too much money to a state, and most importantly affect it's ability to export goods and services too much to be worth it. If the americans attacked china, china could ruin the dollar by converting it's reserve of dollars. America could ruin chinese credit by devaluing the dollar. Both could starve europe by export embargoes, and europe could damage either by refusing to import it's goods, and withdrawing services and links.

It's probably patently obvious that i have never studied economics and know little about the international trade balances/forex markets/central banking, but the thrust of my argument remains valid.


Any conflict that was fought would take rather the form of the russian invasion of afghanistan, with one or both sides providing weaons and finance to proxy groups to battle for their interests. I cannot foresee the day when the various starry flags (with stripes, a ring of stars or an arc around a hammer+sickle)(european one assuming european federalism continues it's inorexable march and the proposed EDF is formed) will fire on each other.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z+Oct 7 2006, 09:01 AM--> (Comrade-Z @ Oct 7 2006, 09:01 AM)
There's an increase in nationalism in all those countries, but I'm not sure why you describe Russia, Poland and China as advanced capitalist countries.

Aside from the limited success of their regimes' efforts to restore capitalism, how "advanced" are they? Consider per capita GDP: Russia is 84th in the world - after Costa Rica. Poland is 70th, below a number of island colonies. And China is 117th - below Belize and Gabon!
source

Obviously not imperialist in the Marxist economic sense.

Perhaps I should clarify:

These countries may not be imperialist yet (although Russia, despite its low GDP, is fairly obviously imperialist, still having a lot of economic hegemony in the Ukraine, Belarussia, the Caucasus region, and the Central Asian republics). [/b]
I'm sorry, no. Russia's economic relationship with say, Central Asia, is nothing like, say, the U.S.'s relationship with Latin America. U.S. capital exploits Latin America through corporate investment, loans, and unequal relations of trade. Russia subsidizes Central Asia .

To use the same word "imperialism" for both....is to promote confusion. You have to distinguish between things in order to analyze them.


However, I think their capitalist classes all desire to be imperialist, and what's more, they are approaching the point when imperialism would be feasible.

You don't even attempt to show this with economic facts, however. So this is really just a statement about yourself, your own preconception and biases. It is not a statement about the real world.


Okocim
what about the relationship between Tibet and China?
What about it? Also not economically imperialist; China heavily subsidizes Tibet.

Really, all of you could benefit from reading Lenin's pamphlet on Imperialism.

Of course, it's possible to use the term "imperialism" in other senses than the Marxist economic sense. Its traditional sense of conquest and domination, for example.

But here's the thing: in that sense, this discussion becomes pointless. You lose the distinctive feature of inter-imperialist war for the redivision of the world market between competing centers of finance capital.

It just becomes: will there be war. Well, yeah, when has that stopped?

Also, communists have never opposed all aggressive war; the question is, what interests does the war serve....communists oppose all imperialist war because it serves to maintain the exploitation of the world by finance capital.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Bitter Hippy+Oct 9 2006, 04:07 PM--> (The Bitter Hippy @ Oct 9 2006, 04:07 PM)i think there's definitely a case for the argument that the major developed nations are far too inter-reliant to risk a war for economic benefit.[/b]

The same argument was used leading up to WWI. As those people found out, it's precisely those interrelationships which lead to modern imperialist war.


The days are past when the economic dislocation caused by throwing another imperialist power out of a region and raping it for one's own benefit was worth the rewards.

But imperialist powers - especially under fascist or fascist-like regimes - are not led by computers or Vulcans. And they do not proceed, like corporations, from a pure bottom-line analysis.

If every country was led in a purely rational way, there'd be no wars at all; they'd just add up the relationship of forces and reach a corresponding diplomatic settlement. But sometimes there's no way of completely measuring that relationship of forces without war; since the willingness to fight one, and keep fighting one, is also part of the relationship of forces.

A world order is stable if the world is divided according to the relationship of forces. But it sure ain't presently. Washington dominates the world and has a tremendous military edge. But its economic edge is much smaller, and mostly based just on exploiting its workers more intensely than European capitalists can, so far. That disproportion is dangerous....certainly leads Washington to rely heavily on its military edge to solve its problems. And may lead its economic rivals to try to put together a comparable military force at some point.

The problem the rulers face is one of survival, not just maximizing profit. Their rate of profit tends to fall with time - that's an inherent part of capitalism. And without profit, their system can't function.

They have to crush the working class, even if it takes fascist regimes to do it. And they have to expand their share of the world market, even if a seemingly hopeless war is the only way to do that. Those two possibilities are interlinked, as I said earlier; so it depends on us whether another inter-imperialist war happens.

I'm not predicting it will happen; but the possibility can't be complacently ruled out. Especially when Washington is actively trying to develop a first-strike nuclear capability - that is, the capability to wipe out an adversary's nukes in a first strike, except maybe for a few that could be cleaned up by a missile defense system.

****


Leo [email protected] 7 2006, 12:08 PM

There's another Marxist economic theory of imperialism?

There is Rosa Luxemburg's analysis which was much more accurate than Lenin's in my opinion.
And does that analysis say that a country can be classified as imperialist without being either highly economically developed - or a net economic exploiter?

I doubt it; Luxemburg was neither stupid nor superficial.

While I haven't read "Accumulation of Capital", I've read a fair bit of other Luxemburg. My experience is that the modern anti-Leninists who try to bodysnatch Rosa Luxemburg - are usually a lot farther from her than Lenin ever was.