Anti-imperialism - a pointless posturing?

[robbo203]

What is imperialism? To put it simply, it is the economic domination of some countires by others which may or may not include the actual terroritorial possession or political control of the former by the latter - what is called colonialism. There is very little left in the way of actual colonialism in the world today yet imperialism remains rampant. Or does it?

What does it actually mean when we say one country economically dominates another? Who owns the country that is doing the "dominating"? Actually, this is becoming more and more difficult to determine as capital becomes increasing globalised and rootless. Who owns America, for example, the bete noire of many leftist anti-imperialists? Well actually it appears that significant chunks of what is called the American economy are not owned by nominal Americans at all but by foreign capital - including notably China. The same goes for most other countries and the trend is moving relentlessly further in that direction.

"Anti-imperialism" to me is the knee yerk response of a kind of naive leftism that adopts a moralistic perspective in which some countries are considered essentially good and others essentially bad. What makes the latter bad is that they exploit the former through their economic power. There is an understandable tendency to side with the underdog - some plucky little third world state standing up to the might of, say, American imperialism evokes a certain sympathy. However, if you look beyond the rhetoric at what is happening on the ground, most of the "exploiting" is not actually being done by foreign capital - in fact the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) from the North to the South is literally miniscule by comparson with total capital flows - just over 1% - and three quarters of FDIs go from one developed countru to another. Most of the exploiting being done in the the Third Word is actually being by done by third world capitalists themselves - local corporations, parastatals and so on. The local "comprador bourgeosie" are by far the most significant beneficiaries of the exploitation of Third world workers and peasants

So what exactly do the "anti-imperialists" of the left want? Do they want complete autarky and no extenal trade. That would certainly seem to preclude the prospect of "imperialism". But the basic logic of capital is inherently expansionist and this applies as much to Third world capitalism as it does to the capitalism of the First world. Third world countries want to trade and they want increased investment from abroad and indeed will to great lengths to ensure a compliant labour to attract foreign capital

It seems to me that anti-imperialism is an irrelevance, a distraction from what is the real problem - global capitalism. As socialists we should not be taking sides in these inter-capitalist reivalries. It is irrelevant whether you are exploited by a foreign capitalist or a native capitalist. Exploitation is exploitation.

By urging workers to align themselves with one capitalist state against another, the anti-imperialist left are actually helping to obscure the class divisions than are to be found in every nation state. Ironically, by impeding the emergence of a united working class that transcend national boundaries - indeed the so called "labour aristocracy thesis" implies that some workers have a direct interest in the maintenance of imperialism - the anti-imperialist left unwittingly aligns itself with the interests of global capital which wants nothing more than that the working class should continue to be divided along so called national lines

[Lynx]

I have a problem with 'anti-imperialism' when it is used as an excuse to support nationalist or reactionary movements. It is a form of tactical opportunism.

Describing a situation as imperialist doesn't necessarily yield additional insight. Only an in-depth analysis will do.

[MarxSchmarx]

Look, of course there has to be a class-based analysis, and that looking at things at only the level of imperialist country/non-imperialist country doesn't work. But the point of anti-imperialism is that internal class interests go hand in hand with a country's foreign policy.

As such, global capitalism was, and continues to be, spearheaded, institutionalized, empowered and consolidated by the wealthy elite, the vast majority of whom reside in, and are based out of, traditionally "imperialist" countries. The Chinese government is no real exception - the history of China, save for an aberrational few decades in the mid 20th century and occasional internal disarray, is a case par excellence of the interest of the local elite leading to an aggressive foreign policy. Sure they haven't carried it out... yet.

And indeed, under global capitalism the economic drivers in the third world are either subsistence production or products that ultimately end up either directly or through another third world country in the global north. Their economies remain entirely dependent on the "imperialist" countries, and the imperialist countries in turn force them to conform to fit their interests.

Indeed, most anti-imperialists on the left don't side with one country as against another. Rather, the problem is with expecting anti-imperialism to develop its own praxis separate from the broader leftist movement. By expecting it to yield something more than simply being another analysis I agree that there are some leftists who over emphasize its prominence in the broader movement.

BTW, many inhabitants of the new world and Australasia would beg to differ with the claim that colonization no longer exists.

[robbo203]

Indeed, most anti-imperialists on the left don't side with one country as against another. .

Do you think so? I would question that. Just to mention "American imperialism" is enough to induce most leftists to the declare their loyalty or support for whichever Third World country happens to be the target of such imperialism in their view. I agree that it is possible to recognise and accept that the action of a particular state can be considered objectively "imperialist" without taking sides. For example the Gulf War could be considered as a particular example of US imperialism (primarily) flexing its muscle. It is quite acceptable to condemn this as such without supporting the Saddam regime. But many leftists do go on to support the other side in the conflict (not so much in the case of Iraq admittedly but elswhere - particularly in Latin America)

This also points to the need for a more nuanced understanding of "imperialism". The case of one country attempting to dominate another - the core idea of "imperialism" - is more obvious in the case of war. But how obvious is it in the case of say a multinational corporation setting up shop in a third world country? Is it useful to call this an example of "imperialism" and what exactly do those who assert that it is propose to do about it?

This is why I question of the value of anti-imperialism. It seems to be linked with an acceptance of the paradigm of a world of nation-states which is increasingly out of date. More specifically insofar as anti-imperialism lends itself to support for so called national liberation struggles, it becomes downright reactionary, in my view, in giving credence to nationalist mythology which inevitably works to weaken and undermine working class consciousness and identity

BTW, many inhabitants of the new world and Australasia would beg to differ with the claim that colonization no longer exists.

I didnt say that colonization no longer exists. I said "There is very little left in the way of actual colonialism in the world today". But are you suggesting that the struggle against such residual colonialism is a legitimate one and that the setting of new nation-states is a goal worth pursuing?

[Yehuda Stern]

What is imperialism? To put it simply, it is the economic domination of some countires by others which may or may not include the actual terroritorial possession or political control of the former by the latter - what is called colonialism.

From a false premise comes a boring, disgusting, reactionary "article." No serious Marxist defines imperialism the way you did. Educate yourself.

[MarxSchmarx]

This also points to the need for a more nuanced understanding of "imperialism". The case of one country attempting to dominate another - the core idea of "imperialism" - is more obvious in the case of war. But how obvious is it in the case of say a multinational corporation setting up shop in a third world country? Is it useful to call this an example of "imperialism" and what exactly do those who assert that it is propose to do about it?

This is why I question of the value of anti-imperialism. It seems to be linked with an acceptance of the paradigm of a world of nation-states which is increasingly out of date. More specifically insofar as anti-imperialism lends itself to support for so called national liberation struggles, it becomes downright reactionary, in my view, in giving credence to nationalist mythology which inevitably works to weaken and undermine working class consciousness and identity

A multinational corporation setting up shop in a 3rd world country by itself is not imperialism. But a powerful country strong-arming a 3rd world country into letting said multinational corporation set up shop, even tho that country's people don't want it to, yes, is imperialism.

There's some difference of terminology here. "imperialism" in the marxist sense, and as historically used by much of the left, means something quite different from what you're describing. In the marxist sense, anti-imperialism DOES have a heavy class component the kind I described in my response - a perspective which is largely absent from the analysis in the original post.

Now, there is another sense of the term that is used outside of leftist circles that focuses on the activities of the nation state. Thus it was "imperialism" whenever, say, country A conquers or subjugates country B. And criticizing leftist activism restricted to that kind of imperialism is a valid endeavor. But I think it is important to distinguish the two.

The critique, therefore, should be in confusion of the two concepts that exists among leftists, rather than declaring that "anti-imperialism" is a problem for left. Indeed:

Do you think so? I would question that. Just to mention "American imperialism" is enough to induce most leftists to the declare their loyalty or support for whichever Third World country happens to be the target of such imperialism in their view.

I agree that it is possible to recognise and accept that the action of a particular state can be considered objectively "imperialist" without taking sides. For example the Gulf War could be considered as a particular example of US imperialism (primarily) flexing its muscle. It is quite acceptable to condemn this as such without supporting the Saddam regime. But many leftists do go on to support the other side in the conflict (not so much in the case of Iraq admittedly but elswhere - particularly in Latin America)

Sure as a generality that's true. The conclusion I come to is that it is a sorry reflection of the state of the left and the shallowness of many activists, not that anti-imperialism as such is problematic.

Having said that, Latin America, and we're probably talking Cuba and Venezuela, are not such a clear case, because there are elements other than their "anti-imperialism" that make them attractive to leftists. And it's fair to say these components (like, say, state subsidies for health care or education) won't exist with heavy North American intervention.

Indeed, unlike Europe and the middle east, anti-Americanism does tend to be rather restricted to the left in Latin America.

are you suggesting that the struggle against such residual colonialism is a legitimate one and that the setting of new nation-states is a goal worth pursuing?

Yes to the former, no to the latter. The struggle against "residual" colonialism does not have to involve the form of creating even more nation states.

[Niccolò Rossi]

From a false premise comes a boring, disgusting, reactionary "article." No serious Marxist defines imperialism the way you did. Educate yourself.

Yehuda, could you elaborate on this point. Stating your position as you have isn't wrong, but maybe you could elaborate on what your are saying here to make a more serious contribution that adds to the debate and allows posters to respond to.

How does a serious Marxist define and analyse imperialism? What are the political conclusions drawn from this analysis and why are they the correct ones?

[Yehuda Stern]

Niccolo,
Lenin defined imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, characterized by the domination of finance capital and a high organic composition of capital. We in the ISL have developed this somewhat, focusing on the super-exploitation of third world workers by imperialist states. Still, if some pretentious Anarchist wants to try and write some reactionary pro-imperialist article, he should at least get his basic definitions right.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolution...090/index.html

What can be taken from the centrist tactic of "revolutionary defencism"?

http://thecommune.wordpress.com/2008...-mike-macnair/

However, though I reject automatic colonial-country defencism, I do not reject revolutionary defencism as a tactic in all circumstances. Revolutionary defencism does not mean supporting the existing state or bourgeois leadership. It means addressing masses who are want to defend their country against a foreign invasion or liberate it from foreign occupation, where this attitude is justified (i.e. we are not merely in a war for redivision of the world between rival imperialists) with the idea that in order to defend against attack, it is necessary for the working class to take power away from the existing capitalist (etc.) regime.

But what about workers in imperialist countries who wage rather minor geopolitical bullying conflicts (i.e., not inter-imperialist wars)? Is there a viable third tactic?

[Such a tactic, as I have discussed with two Trotskyists on the Falklands war here, here, and here would have to be one also based on the independent centrist (not vulgar "centrist") tendency in the Second International, but this would probably entail a sort of practical class-strugglist apathy on the question of imperialist wars outside of revolutionary periods (limited to at best token sympathy for the revolutionary defencism in the bullied countries), focusing instead on building the worker-class movement at home, including within the military.]

[robbo203]

From a false premise comes a boring, disgusting, reactionary "article." No serious Marxist defines imperialism the way you did. Educate yourself.

What sort of nonsensical response is this? No serious Marxist you declare with the air of someone who hasnt even bothered to read what he sweepingly condemns, defines imperialism in this way i.e. the economic domination of some countries by others. Then in the next breath you come out with this:

"Lenin defined imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, characterized by the domination of finance capital and a high organic composition of capital. We in the ISL have developed this somewhat, focusing on the super-exploitation of third world workers by imperialist states"

So what the hell is that if not the "economic domination of some countries by others", If imperialism is not the "economic domination of some countries by others" then what is it in your view?

Instead of empty insults it would nice to see a little more substance to your unsubstantiated claims

[Yehuda Stern]

First of all, I did unfortunately read the article, though certainly I could have done better things with my time, like watching an Owen Wilson movie or get some sleep. I wasted my time the way I did, though, and reached the conclusion that I did.

At any rate, while your vague notion of economic domination may be gleaned from our developed notion of imperialism - though not really - I doubt that our outlook is what you had in mind when you wrote the, um, "article." So please. You were just lazy at studying what you were supposed to criticize, and ended up with an article which is nothing more than an excuse for western Anarchists not to defend third world countries against assaults by 'their' states.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Yehuda, this is not an appropriate reply. Sure may think these things about Robbo and his article but that's not a pretext for being abusive and dismissive. It would be much more beneficial if you tried to seriously address Robbo and the points he has made and contribute positively to the discussion.

[robbo203]

First of all, I did unfortunately read the article, though certainly I could have done better things with my time, like watching an Owen Wilson movie or get some sleep. I wasted my time the way I did, though, and reached the conclusion that I did.

At any rate, while your vague notion of economic domination may be gleaned from our developed notion of imperialism - though not really - I doubt that our outlook is what you had in mind when you wrote the, um, "article." So please. You were just lazy at studying what you were supposed to criticize, and ended up with an article which is nothing more than an excuse for western Anarchists not to defend third world countries against assaults by 'their' states.

Ah ha so now I see it. This is the real reason why you are so dismissive - because I dont reach the conclusions you would favour - namely supporting various third world capitalist states against assaults from other capitalist states.

I notice also that you have now backtracked and conceded by implication that you were wrong to say that "no serious Marxist defines imperialism the way" in the way I did - namely the economic domination of some countries by others. Of course I was presenting a simplified definition of imperialism to capture the essence of it. But it is hardly an incorrect definition of imperialism whether defined by Marxists or anyone else is it now? So your comment was completely inept. I moreover did not say that imperialism consists only in the economic domination of some countries by other. Colonialism for example is a specific form of imperialism that involves the territorial capture and control of areas outside of the colonising state. And yes I also referred to imperialist wars as an expression of imperialism

As for your claim that "You were just lazy at studying what you were supposed to criticize" well what the hell does that make you? Your criticisims are shallow and ill informed if not downright incorrect and dont ever venture beyond the point of asserting your own well known prejudices. To me that is the essence of intellectual laziness.

[JimmyJazz]

Who owns America, for example, the bete noire of many leftist anti-imperialists? Well actually it appears that significant chunks of what is called the American economy are not owned by nominal Americans at all but by foreign capital - including notably China.

I actually don't think this is true. America has a lot of foreign debt to China (the Chinese government), and runs a trade deficit with China. But that is not the same as Chinese capitalists owning a stake in the U.S. economy.

I don't see any problem with anti-imperialism, except when it explicitly conflicts with class struggle (as when an "anti-imperialist" regime murders communists and other advanced workers). When that's the case, it's not a hard choice for me to side with the communists and workers and against the regime.

Of course, just as I think that the class struggle is most effective when it centers on organization, solidarity, and class resolve, rather than acts of violence by individual workers against capitalists, so I believe that anti-imperialism is most effective when it seeks to create coordination and solidarity among the economically weaker nations to promote their industrialization and economic independence, rather than taking the form of individual countries lashing out at the empire only when the empire lashes out at them.

By the way, you say that anti-imperialism is "pointless posturing", yet you make a point out of the fact that in former times there was a period of colonialism and a period of distinct post-colonial imperialism. Do you think these trends should have been opposed by the countries they oppressed? So, do you believe anti-imperialism is really pointless posturing, or merely that it is now outdated?

However, if you look beyond the rhetoric at what is happening on the ground, most of the "exploiting" is not actually being done by foreign capital - in fact the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) from the North to the South is literally miniscule by comparson with total capital flows - just over 1% - and three quarters of FDIs go from one developed countru to another.

You want to provide a source for this?

Also, there are a few things you overlook with your focus on capital investments. One, exploitation today often takes the form of loans to "developing" countries. The local bourgeoisie in such a situation would be economically similar to the small business owners who, although they hire people and exploit the labor of others, are themselves really owned by the bank. Two, merely using developing countries as consumer markets can be a crippling form of exploitation. As long as your people are buying all their manufactured goods from somewhere else, there is no domestic market left in which local capitalists might sell their goods. This is why some countries have turned towards import substitution industrialization, or putting limits on the amount of manufactured goods which may be imported from other countries and using this capital instead to buy advanced manufacturing technology. South Korea's unbelievably rapid industrialization was largely due to an ISI strategy (albeit engineered by a center-right strongman, General Park).

Third world countries want to trade and they want increased investment from abroad and indeed will to great lengths to ensure a compliant labour to attract foreign capital

Short-sighted people, and the politicians who receive personal kickbacks from foreign direct investment, want this. Far-sighted people, with no personal stake in their country's economic dependency, do not.

This is basically the exact same logic that says Wal-Mart creates jobs.

So what exactly do the "anti-imperialists" of the left want?

The opportunity for genuine capitalist development in the countries which are economically dependent on the West. They can't get to socialism if they can't even have capitalism.

As socialists we should not be taking sides in these inter-capitalist reivalries. It is irrelevant whether you are exploited by a foreign capitalist or a native capitalist. Exploitation is exploitation.

Of course. But that's not really the issue. Capitalist development must precede socialism.

And I do realize that there is a danger, when focus is put on industrialization and capitalist development, that the government might decide to clamp down on labor. If you really want to industrialize quickly, emasculate labor unions and ban strikes to reduce labor costs, right? But I think that the Chavez regime, however very imperfect it might be, does show that it is at least broadly possible to be both economically anti-imperialist (he has moved to reduce Venezuela's dependency in important ways, like pulling out of the IMF and WB) and pro-labor.

[robbo203]

I actually don't think this is true. America has a lot of foreign debt to China (the Chinese government), and runs a trade deficit with China. But that is not the same as Chinese capitalists owning a stake in the U.S. economy..

Point taken. Actual Foreign Direct Investment by China in America is 600 million dollars which is small fry. But this doesnt affect the basic argument. China is now the largest foreign holder holder of US treasury bonds and to that extent the US economy is in thrall to the chinese ..er...imperialism.

I don't see any problem with anti-imperialism, except when it explicitly conflicts with class struggle (as when an "anti-imperialist" regime murders communists and other advanced workers). When that's the case, it's not a hard choice for me to side with the communists and workers and against the regime. ..

Anti imperialism always and necessarily conflicts with the class struggle. How can it not be so? The focuses of anti-imperialist struggle is the nation state and the effect of this is to inevitably gloss over and obscure the class struggle. I have yet to come across a single cogent or coherent argument against this statement. Anti-imperialists talk unconvincingly about the struggles of the proletarian and the peasants in the same breath as talk about the need for developing nations to struggle against imperialism (except of course when one imperialist third world country invades another and this puts them in a qaundary) as if these two things can be combined or syntheised in some way. They cannot anymore than can oil and water . The nation state is a creature of capitalism. By fighting for it, anti-imperialists inadvertently lend their support to capitalism (usually in its state capitalist form) just as they divert attention away from the basic problem which is global capitalism by focussing on the phenonenon of imperialism

By the way, you say that anti-imperialism is "pointless posturing", yet you make a point out of the fact that in former times there was a period of colonialism and a period of distinct post-colonial imperialism. Do you think these trends should have been opposed by the countries they oppressed? So, do you believe anti-imperialism is really pointless posturing, or merely that it is now outdated?..

Anti-imperialism being effectively a form of nationalism has always been pointless from the standpoint of the working class but has become even more so since the globalisation of capitalism in the last few decades. It is now a totally reactionary perspective to take in my view becuase the picture it present corresponds even less to the realities of global capitalism

You want to provide a source for this?? ..

International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV381 - September 2006

Also, there are a few things you overlook with your focus on capital investments. One, exploitation today often takes the form of loans to "developing" countries. The local bourgeoisie in such a situation would be economically similar to the small business owners who, although they hire people and exploit the labor of others, are themselves really owned by the bank. Two, merely using developing countries as consumer markets can be a crippling form of exploitation. As long as your people are buying all their manufactured goods from somewhere else, there is no domestic market left in which local capitalists might sell their goods. This is why some countries have turned towards import substitution industrialization, or putting limits on the amount of manufactured goods which may be imported from other countries and using this capital instead to buy advanced manufacturing technology. South Korea's unbelievably rapid industrialization was largely due to an ISI strategy (albeit engineered by a center-right strongman, General Park)...

This exactly bears out what I have always believed. Anti-impeirlism is about inter-capitalist rivalries . You have chosen to side with one group of capitalist exploiters against another. Fine . But dont expect me to join in solidarity with you. Another thing about anti-imperialism is a certain elective affinity with state capitalism and the notion of import substitution industrialisation bears this out

Short-sighted people, and the politicians who receive personal kickbacks from foreign direct investment, want this. Far-sighted people, with no personal stake in their country's economic dependency, do not.)...

Ditto. This says it all . You are completely making my case for me demonstrating beyond doubt the nationalistic perspective that is inherent in "anti-imperialism"

The opportunity for genuine capitalist development in the countries which are economically dependent on the West. They can't get to socialism if they can't even have capitalism...

In case you havent noticed they have already got capitalism! Do you imageine for one moment that capitalism does not exist in what are called the Third World countries? Of course it does. What you are seemingly proposing in any case is to reform of global capitalist trading system to permit a more egalitarian outcome. Its the usual liberal tosh. But there is another thing also - you talk about these countries being economically dependent on the West. What are you implying here? Are you advocating autarky and how do you imagine this is going to promote the genuine capitalist development you so ardently seek?

Of course. But that's not really the issue. Capitalist development must precede socialism....

Right so that means more destruction of the enviroment, more devastating wars, more impoverishment of local communitues, the deeper penetration of commerical values and alienating outlook on life that goes with this. And all this stageist nonsense is justifiable on the grounds that it is a good preparation for "socialism". Bollocks to that. Capitalism is a global system. Has been for many a decade. It has totally outlived whatever usefulness it had at least since the turn of the last century. And you want to prolong the agony?

[JimmyJazz]

Anti imperialism always and necessarily conflicts with the class struggle. How can it not be so? The focuses of anti-imperialist struggle is the nation state and the effect of this is to inevitably gloss over and obscure the class struggle.

So when the Red Army fought the imperialist Allied expeditionary forces in Russia from 1918-20, they should have been engaging in class struggle instead of anti-imperialism? What exactly would this have meant?

I seriously don't understand your perspective. Yes, anti-imperialism conflicts with class struggle--except when it doesn't.

[Dervish]

First of all, I did unfortunately read the article, though certainly I could have done better things with my time, like watching an Owen Wilson movie or get some sleep. I wasted my time the way I did, though, and reached the conclusion that I did.

At any rate, while your vague notion of economic domination may be gleaned from our developed notion of imperialism - though not really - I doubt that our outlook is what you had in mind when you wrote the, um, "article." So please. You were just lazy at studying what you were supposed to criticize, and ended up with an article which is nothing more than an excuse for western Anarchists not to defend third world countries against assaults by 'their' states.

Is it really necessary to be so disrespectful and impolite?
Vulgar language adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

[ComradeOm]

Right so that means more destruction of the enviroment, more devastating wars, more impoverishment of local communitues, the deeper penetration of commerical values and alienating outlook on life that goes with this. And all this stageist nonsense is justifiable on the grounds that it is a good preparation for "socialism". Bollocks to that. Capitalism is a global system. Has been for many a decade. It has totally outlived whatever usefulness it had at least since the turn of the last century. And you want to prolong the agony?

Are you suggesting its possible to create a socialist (or classless) society without the prior presence of capitalist relations?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Are you suggesting its possible to create a socialist (or classless) society without the prior presence of capitalist relations?

Are you suggesting that each nation must under-go a period of capitalist development before socialism can be achieved?

That is what JJ is suggesting here whether he realises it or not.

[robbo203]

Are you suggesting its possible to create a socialist (or classless) society without the prior presence of capitalist relations?

No I am suggesting that capitalism already exists as a global system everywhere and that there is absolutely no need to prolong the agony on the fictitious grounds that we need still more "capitalist development". Indeed there is a theoretical possiblility that more capitalist development might make socialism less, not more, likely e.g. through environmental destruction, devastasting regional wars and the like.

It may very well be a case now of "socialism or barbarism"