towards a theory of modern imperialism - first thoughts

[peaccenicked]

In Trotsky's thought the concept of "capitalist equilibrium", i.e. a dialectical view of the balance of forces within capitalism, plays a major role as an analytic tool in the understanding of the dynamics of the world situation. In mid 1921, Trotsky addressed the delegates to the Third Congress of the Comintern, opening his report on the world situation as follows: "Capitalist equilibrium is a complicated phenomenon; the capitalist regime builds up such equilibrium, it breaks it up, only to rebuild it and break it up again, widening, in passing, the scope of its rule. In the sphere of the economy, crisis and boom constitute respectively a break-up and restoration of equilibrium. In the sphere of class relationships, a break-up in equilibrium consists of strikes, lock-outs, revolutionary struggles. In the sphere of the relationships between the states, a break-up in equilibrium is war, or either in a more vexed way, a war of customs tariffs, economic war or blockade. Capitalism thus has an unstable equilibrium, which from time to time is broken and later rebuilt. At the same time, such equilibrium is greatly resistant: the best proof of that is given by the fact that the capitalist world still exists."(1)
The unipolarity of US capitalism in that it dominates the world as evidated by US dollar as the words universal
exchange value, has provided an anomolous equilibrium
in the sense that changes in the balance of world forces
have tended to improve the US position as a world power. It is recognised as the worlds only super power.The bombings of Iraq, yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Brought about a restructuring of global politics, The major powers with the exception of the UK
began to push for a multi polar and a UN that had more legal power ie what was implicit was to restrict the US.
The bombing of Afghanistan gave new direction, the attitude was to get what one could from a deal from the US to aid one's national interests. The war against terror has proved to be a reactionary step forward for the States, and fits in with its global expansion. In a sensse the unipolar nature has been accentuated,
however this at tremendous cost, not only financially
but in politicising more people against the blatant, unprovoked threats of aggression against third world countries that capital wants to make safe for itself to operate.

A interesting link.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=26575 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26575)



(Edited by peaccenicked at 1:01 pm on Feb. 24, 2002)

[Supermodel]

Since when did allied bombing of terror camps in Afghanistan become a fight for imperialism agaisnt the third world?

The bombing of the WTC was a first world act, using the machinery of the 21st century to attack imperialist symbols. The current war in Afghanistan is a retaliation for that direct event.

USA's support of the Mujahadin in the 1980's was to contain soviet agression as the USSR attempted to punch thru to the Indian ocean by way of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Again, not a US act of aggression but in defense against Soviet aggression. The soviets invaded Afghanistan in a strikingly imperialist manner, not the USA.

THE USA has no need for Afghanistan's resources and no imperialist interest in it other than to prevent it from being annexed by an enemy power.

[munkey soup]

The US wanted to create a Vietnam for the USSR in Afghanistan, do not think they cared a bit for the Afghani people.
Russia invaded AF. because it saw it's power there waning. The gov't in AF was communist but was being threatened by the mujahedin fighters.
Unicol, an american oil company, has a huge interest in AF and surrounding countries. When the Taliban first came to power, Unicol, backed by the US gov't, as well as an Argentinian oil company began negotiations with the Taliban's leaders to try to build a pipeline across southern AF(the part the Taliban had most control over). Once AF is secure, oil and gas companies will return to the region, the war in AF is not a simple anti-terror campaign.

[munkey soup]

Is it more US imperialism or more American owned corporate imperialism? Or is there direct correlation between these two? Does the US gov't do what it does for the betterment of it's people or for the betterment of gov'ts campaign providers?

Corporate dollars run the US. This is maybe why US imperialism is going unnoticed by its own people. Us yankees are in love with all the shiny products Corporations sell us. We think all should partake in our consumeristic gluttony. But these Corporations are selling the US to others, not just products. It is Corporate Imperialism, use the cheapest resources and sell to the highest bidder. Rape the third world and bring sell the loot to western consumers.

[MindCrime]

The United States has been in negotiation with the Talabin Regime since 1997 to build a pipeline to bring the presicous oil from Central Asia to the shipping routes in the Indian Ocean. They blocked of diplomatic relations with other nations that harbored terrorists, but negotiated with Afganistan's Talabin who where know to have invited in Osama bin Laden, the fucking leader of the larges terrorist operation in the world. A double standard perhaps? You bet so, there's money to be made! Its the same reason we wont talk to those goddamn commies in Cuba, but Red China's our biggest trading partner. We cant make money off Cuba, we were doing so with Batista. China however is fine to let Capitalism back in, so well do deal with them. Plus theyd kick our ass in a war, they fucked us over pretty bad in the Korean "Conflict".

Hell, the Soviets were responding to a cry for help from a Communist regime in Afganistan that was being over run with Mujahadin rebels, much like America ran to help their South Vietnamese puppet when the Viet Kong came knocking. In both cases the other superpower funded the rebels to bleed and embarass their rivals. The US used the same tactic the Soviets used in Vietnam, how are we any dffrent from our enemy then? We were so quick to defend our Afgani friends, now a few decades later were overthrowing them. And a few dacades from now were gonna have to do it again. Its like Iraq, out little puppets try to stand on their own and we need to kill civilians in bombing campaigns to replace them with a new one. Its the American Way. If they wont work for us, theyre against us. King George Bush the Second even said so.

Do you really think that people would throw their lives away flying planes into buildings if they didnt have a damn good reason? Were retaliating in Afganistan, for a retaliation for our actions throughout the world since the later half of this century. People get pissed when yuo fuck with their country, and then stuff like this happens. Dont think this will never happen again, judging by our ultra violnt reaction. We reap what we sow.

And yes, its sad but America has strayed far from the ideals of our own Revolution (though admitidly it wasnt much of a revolution...) and we have to come to terms with that. Ignoring it wont make it better, we have to realize were part of a nation that commits henious acts around the world, and we have to change that, or else the violence will never end.

And drop the Allies/Axis crap, this isnt WW2 and no matter what the Media says the terrorists are no where near as bad as the Nazis.

[peaccenicked]

[quote]Quote: from Supermodel on 7:22 pm on Feb. 25, 2002
Since when did allied bombing of terror camps in Afghanistan become a fight for imperialism agaisnt the third world?[quote]

Allied bombing....american bombing
there more than 3000 innocents dead. this was no accident, it was retribution. The war was illegal,
and Bin Laden is still on the run.
http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/usgame.htm