Anti-imperialism - a pointless posturing?

[Yehuda Stern]

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.

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

With all due respect, I really don't need any lectures on manners from the two of you. The original article was written in a condescending and hostile style - calling resistance to imperialism "posturing" - and thus was answered in the same spirit.

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

No, I actually did no such thing, but I might concede that you aren't lazy, just that you are completely unable to understand the Marxist definition of imperialism. What that makes you - I'll leave that for you to decide. I don't want to be thought of as "disrespectful" or "inappropriate."

[ComradeOm]

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"

So you are asserting that every national society/economy on this planet is already capitalist? Or are you simply refusing to study the problem at a national level? That is, is this "global capitalism" really a substitute for economic development in protocapitalist economies?

I mean, for all that capitalism is a "global system" there are unquestionably vast numbers of people globally who live in regions dominated by pre-capitalist economic relations. Indeed if either Lenin or Luxembourg are correct then such primitive economic societies are an integral component of any system of global capitalism. Do you really believe that a socialist society, comparable to any that may be created in the West, is a possibility in, for example, Nepal?

If so, I'd also be interested in your reasoning as to what has changed in the past few decades or even centuries to make this possible. After all, global capitalism has dominated the globe for at least a century now

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

Don't worry, I'm merely interested in the contradictions in robbo's position

[robbo203]

No, I actually did no such thing, but I might concede that you aren't lazy, just that you are completely unable to understand the Marxist definition of imperialism. What that makes you - I'll leave that for you to decide. I don't want to be thought of as "disrespectful" or "inappropriate."

You are just beating about the bush again. I have yet to discover a single "serious marxist" or indeed anyone else for that matter who would dissent with my claim that imperialism involves the economic and sometimes political/territorial (as I pointed out) domination of some countries over others. Are you seriously trying to maintain that this definition is wrong? I can hardly believe it. Show me any definition, Marxist or otherwise, that conflicts with the above - if you can

I was not presenting an elaborated definition of "imperialism" - merely a simplified one that captured the essence of this phenomenon. The fact that I did not prattle on about "monopology capitalism" or "finance capital" is neither here nor there. Even Lenin's definition of imperialism as the highest state of capitalism can be comfortably accommodated within this very broad and simplified definition of imperialism as you must know

So I ask myself again why are you raising such an absurd objection if not just to dissent for the sake of it - or because you feel uncomfortable with the conclusions I reached about anti-imperialism as an irrelevant posturing

[robbo203]

So you are asserting that every national society/economy on this planet is already capitalist? Or are you simply refusing to study the problem at a national level? That is, is this "global capitalism" really a substitute for economic development in protocapitalist economies?

I mean, for all that capitalism is a "global system" there are unquestionably vast numbers of people globally who live in regions dominated by pre-capitalist economic relations. Indeed if either Lenin or Luxembourg are correct then such primitive economic societies are an integral component of any system of global capitalism. Do you really believe that a socialist society, comparable to any that may be created in the West, is a possibility in, for example, Nepal?

If so, I'd also be interested in your reasoning as to what has changed in the past few decades or even centuries to make this possible. After all, global capitalism has dominated the globe for at least a century now

There are no countries anywhere in which the dominant economic mode of production is not capitalism. Certainly, there are still large swathes of the world in which precapitalist economic relations continue - even in some cases , chattel slavery - but capitalism is neverthless the dominant mode of production in the sense that it calls the shots and is what ardently and singlemindedly promoted by the political elites everywhere. Subsistence peasant agriculture is still, of course, an important activity in many parts of the world - particularly Africa - but is far from immune the effects of capitalist development. In Africa, for example increasing land privatisation / concentration and primitive accumulation is going on apace and resulting in the economic marginalisation and displacement of more and more farmers. Rural-urban migration has transformed the whole profile of many so called third world countries and with an ever growing proportion of the population cut off from the land and living in mushrooming cities their exposure to the dominant capitalist mode of production is becoming more and more apparent as is their reliance upon in the informal black market of capitalism

Do I believe it is possible to establish socialism in Nepal for example? No, of course not but that has got nothing to do with the supposed lack of capitalism in Nepal. It has got everything to do with the fact that you simply cannot have "socialism in one country". Socialism has to be global just like capitalism

One last thing - dont underestimate the role of telecommunications. Even the remotest villages of Nepal or Upper Volta or wherever can now have access to relatively cheap means of communication that allow them to know instantly what is happening elsewhere in the world. I personally know, and have commmunicated with individuals in places as far apart as India , Uganda and Gambia who are genuine socialists and seek a non-market non-statist alternative to capitalism. They will tell you that they are sick to back with capitalism and will robustly and quite rightly reject any notion of some first world socialist pressing the need for more capitalist development upon them. There is a distinct risk of coming across as incredibly patronising in thinking the the "native" in faraway places need to experience the "civilising" influence of capitalism before they can ever become socialists

We do not need more capitalist development; what we need now is a growing socialist movement everywhere pushing for a clear alternative to capitalism. My concern is that those pushing for more capitalist development will make this less, not more, likely. Capitalist development is a complete diversion and incidentally insofar as it tends towards the obliteration of precapitalist social formations it might even conceivably undermine any hope that an alternative to capitalism is theoretically possible. At least farmers that are still able to produce for their own subsistence needs have the glimpse of an alternative to capitalism; when they have to purchase all their requirements from a street vendor or a some money grabbing merchant that is when such hope may well be severely put to the test with fatalistic resignation to the inevitability of capitalism ensuing

[ComradeOm]

...but capitalism is neverthless the dominant mode of production in the sense that it calls the shots and is what ardently and singlemindedly promoted by the political elites everywhere

But that's not what capitalism is. You may have a thin veneer of a bourgeoisie presiding over a peasant dominated economy but the economy is still run along feudal lines. A capitalist society entails a whole host of profound structural changes (the most obvious being industrialisation) that creates the preconditions for socialist revolution. Whether or not the political elites, usually lackeys of imperialist nations, espouse Friedman-esque policies is irrelevant. Here's an interesting graph that establishes just how limited industrialisation is today

Subsistence peasant agriculture is still, of course, an important activity in many parts of the world - particularly Africa - but is far from immune the effects of capitalist development. In Africa, for example increasing land privatisation / concentration and primitive accumulation is going on apace and resulting in the economic marginalisation and displacement of more and more farmers. Rural-urban migration has transformed the whole profile of many so called third world countries and with an ever growing proportion of the population cut off from the land and living in mushrooming cities their exposure to the dominant capitalist mode of production is becoming more and more apparent as is their reliance upon in the informal black market of capitalism

None of which can ignore the obvious fact that the vast majority of Africa, huge swathes of Asia and S America, and even some corners of Europe rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. They have a very tenuous connection to capitalist markets (be they national or global) and are certainly not fertile breeding ground for socialism

Although you are certainly correct to point out the growing impact of urbanisation in Africa. Without firm economic/industrial growth this cannot but produce endless shanty towns and dire poverty. This is not a welcome development by any criteria but it also masks the degree to which African nations lag behind the West in terms of industrialisation. Urbanisation provides a good gauge for the latter in 19th C Europe but that does not necessarily hold true for Africa or Latin America today

Do I believe it is possible to establish socialism in Nepal for example? No, of course not but that has got nothing to do with the supposed lack of capitalism in Nepal. It has got everything to do with the fact that you simply cannot have "socialism in one country". Socialism has to be global just like capitalism

Which is a way of simply stepping around the question. Do you suggest that socialism is to be imported from Nepal from abroad? Or that the collapse of global capitalism, a system which barely touches Nepal, will automatically see the creation of a socialist society? And what happened to the business of the emancipation of the working class being the responsibility of the working class itself?

I personally know, and have commmunicated with individuals in places as far apart as India , Uganda and Gambia who are genuine socialists and seek a non-market non-statist alternative to capitalism. They will tell you that they are sick to back with capitalism and will robustly and quite rightly reject any notion of some first world socialist pressing the need for more capitalist development upon them. There is a distinct risk of coming across as incredibly patronising in thinking the the "native" in faraway places need to experience the "civilising" influence of capitalism before they can ever become socialists

And I'd tend agree, certainly in part, with that sentiment. But then its surprising coming from yourself... and hence my questions. Surely these isolated socialists who are not living in industrial societies have no choice but "to carry out a bourgeois revolution and to establish state capitalism"?

[robbo203]

But that's not what capitalism is. You may have a thin veneer of a bourgeoisie presiding over a peasant dominated economy but the economy is still run along feudal lines. A capitalist society entails a whole host of profound structural changes (the most obvious being industrialisation) that creates the preconditions for socialist revolution. Whether or not the political elites, usually lackeys of imperialist nations, espouse Friedman-esque policies is irrelevant. Here's an interesting graph that establishes just how limited industrialisation is today"?

All this does not alter the fact that capitalism is nevertheless dominant in the sense that I have decribed earlier. I question your characterisation of "an economy still run along feudal lines" not in the sense that there are not still certain residual feudal elements in the complex of socio-economic relationships that comprise any Third World country but in respect of the extent of these. I think the picture you paint is a gross exaggeration. Nor does it matter particularly that the political elite should espouse "Friedman-esque policies" for the claim to hold that they are singularly preoccupied with the capitalist development of their nation-states. They can just as easily endorse state capitalist policies for the same to hold as I said in response to Jimmy Jazz's point about import substitution.

As for industrialisation why is it a neccessary that every last corner of the world should be industrialised before we can have socialism? I just dont get this. There is a legitimate argument for saying that some industrialisation is needed in global terms before socialism can be established on a global scale but it is ridiculous to assert that everywhere needs to be industrialised before we can have socialism. I suspect that behind this claim might lie the belief that you can somehow have "socialism in one country" which would explain why you apparently see the need to for every country to be industrialised - in case one country achieved socialism and not the rest. But this isnt possible anyway and for this reason I reject this argument. The level of industrialisation however spatially patchy it may be is already more than adequate to sustain a global socialist society as it is. And the fact that it is spatially patchy does not at all mean that workers in those parts of the world where induistrialisation is lacking cannot become socialist. Which is why I brought up the point about telecommunications and the spread of information. Indeed , the logic of your argument would seem to suggest that the chances of socialism in the so called post-industrial societies that have undergone tertiarisation with the growth of the services sector has in some sense receded given the inordinate emphasis you place on "industrialisation". It seems to suggest a kind of workerist notion that you cannot be a socialist if you dont work in a factory and wear a cloth cap

None of which can ignore the obvious fact that the vast majority of Africa, huge swathes of Asia and S America, and even some corners of Europe rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. They have a very tenuous connection to capitalist markets (be they national or global) and are certainly not fertile breeding ground for socialism"?

Again this is a gross exaggeration which bears little relation to the facts. It is simply not true that "vast majority of Africa, huge swathes of Asia and S America, and even some corners of Europe rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood (and) have a very tenuous connection to capitalist markets". There have been quite detailed studies of household economies which reveal a much more dynamic and extensive relationship between subsistence production and the capitalist sector than you appear to give credit for. The fact that a peasant engages in subsistence production does not preclude the same peasant producing for a market or indeed migrating to the town for spells to participate in the informal or even formal sector. The allocation of labour within peasant households is actually quite a complex matter involving efforts at maximising returns by different members of the household engaging in different kinds of activities - both subsistence and market oriented - as circumstances dictate. Moreover as I pointed out a growing proportion of the population of third world countries are now more or less permanantly urbanised and thus dependent on the purchase of neccesities through the market and even in Africa despite your claim that the vast majority of africans are dependent on subsistence agriculture. Most rural africans certainly do engage in some subsistence but that certainly does not preclude them also engaging in commercial agriculture more so in some parts of Africa (e.g. West Africa) than others

Although you are certainly correct to point out the growing impact of urbanisation in Africa. Without firm economic/industrial growth this cannot but produce endless shanty towns and dire poverty. This is not a welcome development by any criteria but it also masks the degree to which African nations lag behind the West in terms of industrialisation. Urbanisation provides a good gauge for the latter in 19th C Europe but that does not necessarily hold true for Africa or Latin America today"?

This is true but the lack of industrialisation or at least large scale industrialisation does not signify the absence of capitalism. I should also point that there is a fair amount of small scale industrialisation particularly in the informal sector

Which is a way of simply stepping around the question. Do you suggest that socialism is to be imported from Nepal from abroad? Or that the collapse of global capitalism, a system which barely touches Nepal, will automatically see the creation of a socialist society? And what happened to the business of the emancipation of the working class being the responsibility of the working class itself?"?

No that is not what I am saying as you must surely be aware. As you know full welll I have always maintained that socialism can be introduced only when a majority understand and want it. It cannot be imposed from above or imported from without. The readiness of workers and peasants in Nepal or anywhere else to embrace socialism implies that workers elsewhere are also socialist minded becuase socialist ideas cannot be contained or confined in one part of the part of the world anyway.

Also I do not see any conceivable mechanism by which global capitalism will "collapse" in the way you suggest - either as a consequence of underconsumptionism or the falling rate of profit (a la Grossman's theory). Capitalism can only be got rid of by consciously and politically bringing it to an end

And I'd tend agree, certainly in part, with that sentiment. But then its surprising coming from yourself... and hence my questions. Surely these isolated socialists who are not living in industrial societies have no choice but "to carry out a bourgeois revolution and to establish state capitalism"?

But why? You have already said yourself that you have a "thin veneer of a bourgeoisie presiding over a peasant dominated economy". So presumably what you are wanting is a more thoroughgoing bourgeois revolution but to what end? State capitalism is no answer at all even if it were possible to implement in an era of neoliberalism and structural adjustment policies. This is why I asked of people who advocate so called "anti-imperialism" to clarify precisely what it is they want in terms of the pattern of economic development. Is it autarky that they advocate? But this is almost certainly bound to fail to deliver what they hope for. In fact in many ways it is a recipe for disaster in capitalist terms. Many third world countires, for example, simply lack a sufficiently sizeable market to permit economies of scale to come into play in many lines of production. If on the other hand, they seek to maintain trading and other links with the outside world and in particular, the more advanced countries with all their technological and economic might at their disposal, then what becomes of the whole argument about so called "anti-imperialism"? Another reason why I think it is all so irrelevent

Im away from the computer for the next few days but I will catch up with the arguments on my return

[robbo203]

None of which can ignore the obvious fact that the vast majority of Africa, huge swathes of Asia and S America, and even some corners of Europe rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood. They have a very tenuous connection to capitalist markets (be they national or global) and are certainly not fertile breeding ground for socialism

Just on the question of the extent of the extent of subsistence agriculture and the supposed tenuous connections of subsistence farmers to capitalist markets check this out http://www3.amherst.edu/~mrhunt/wome...g/redding.html

I think you need to distinguish between 3 types of farming - subsistence, petty commodity peasant production and large scale capitalist agriculture (involving hired labour). Most farmers in Africa are involved in both subsistence and petty commodity production and it would not be particularly accurate to suggest that the vast majority of Africa rely on subsistence alone. Rapid urnbansiation in Africa and elsewhere and the growth of urban food markets will have increased the importance of petty commodity production as well imported food (particularly cereals)

[ComradeOm]

All this does not alter the fact that capitalism is nevertheless dominant in the sense that I have decribed earlier. I question your characterisation of "an economy still run along feudal lines" not in the sense that there are not still certain residual feudal elements in the complex of socio-economic relationships that comprise any Third World country but in respect of the extent of these. I think the picture you paint is a gross exaggeration

Did I say feudal? My mistake, its a poor choice of word to use outside of Europe. Pre-capitalist is better. I deal with the peasant question below

Nor does it matter particularly that the political elite should espouse "Friedman-esque policies" for the claim to hold that they are singularly preoccupied with the capitalist development of their nation-states

Hmmm? My point was that the political orientation, or even economic basis, of the minority elite is pretty much irrelevant when discussing the emergence of a socialist society. What is important is the relations of production that occupy those oppressed classes on which the responsibility of building a socialist society lies

Which is really the crux of the issue. You can talk all you want about ideology or telecommunications but the reality is that if the economic base is not advanced enough then there will be no socialist revolution. Its not a matter of making sure that people are "socialist minded" enough... or rather only certain classes have the potential to become "socialist minded" and thus create a socialist society

Again this is a gross exaggeration which bears little relation to the facts. It is simply not true that "vast majority of Africa, huge swathes of Asia and S America, and even some corners of Europe rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood (and) have a very tenuous connection to capitalist markets". There have been quite detailed studies of household economies which reveal a much more dynamic and extensive relationship between subsistence production and the capitalist sector than you appear to give credit for. The fact that a peasant engages in subsistence production does not preclude the same peasant producing for a market or indeed migrating to the town for spells to participate in the informal or even formal sector. The allocation of labour within peasant households is actually quite a complex matter involving efforts at maximising returns by different members of the household engaging in different kinds of activities - both subsistence and market oriented - as circumstances dictate. Moreover as I pointed out a growing proportion of the population of third world countries are now more or less permanantly urbanised and thus dependent on the purchase of neccesities through the market and even in Africa despite your claim that the vast majority of africans are dependent on subsistence agriculture. Most rural africans certainly do engage in some subsistence but that certainly does not preclude them also engaging in commercial agriculture more so in some parts of Africa (e.g. West Africa) than others

A state of affairs that has existed for... well, for millennia. Here you are guilty of conflating the market with capitalism. Peasant households have always traded surplus produce on various local markets. By your definition capitalist society has existed in Europe alone for over a thousand years! For example, the average Russian peasant of 1914, unquestionably backwards and existing in semi-feudal conditions, sold up to 40% of his produce on the market. Could he be said to exist in capitalist society?

Of course not. Capitalism has a distinct set of features that differentiates it from previous economic models. Chief amongst these are wage slavery, production for profit (as captured by the famous MCM equation), supremacy of the market, mass investment in society's productive forces, etc, and, of course, an proletariat whose labour underpins all the above. That's capitalism and that does not exist in many parts of the world today

As for the geographic spread of subsistence farming, David Griggs (An Introduction to Agricultural Geography, 1995), while acknowledging the vagueness of the term, states that "those whose first aim is to provide their family's food and other necessities, and for whom sales for cash are secondary, are dominant in much of Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America". This is supported by an analysis of purchased agricultural inputs - in the West they typically form over 50% of the gross output whereas in Asia & Latin America the value of inputs is only 25% of outputs. Sub-Saharan Africa is a mere 10%. These figures are a good indicator as to the complexity and advancement of the agricultural process - inputs would be the likes of chemical fertilisers, specialised seeds, mechanical aids, etc - and lower figures obviously indicate more basic subsistence farming. By these or any other standard (including mechanisation, labour power, productivity, fertilisers, etc) farming in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America resembles subsistence farming far more than anything seen in (most of) Europe for at least fifty years

I'd give Griggs far more weight than the link you provided, if only because the latter claims that subsistence farming has not been a feature of African agriculture, for or less, for a century or so. In which case it died out in Africa some decades before Europe or N America!

As for industrialisation why is it a neccessary that every last corner of the world should be industrialised before we can have socialism?

As in have factories cover every last inch of the globe? Of course not, agriculture is a necessity after all. However, like the difference between cottage industry and modern industry, there is a difference between pre-capitalist farming and capitalist farming. The latter first made an appearance in the West in the form of small farms of the 19th C that largely supplanted the existing peasant societies by dividing up the land into more profitable lots and driving the latter into the cities. Commercial farmers of this ilk were an integral component of capitalism and - possessing larger lots, hired labour, and more advanced technology - they were primarily geared towards production for the market. In the last few decades however even this model that been largely rendered obsolete in the West with the emergence of a grand bourgeoisie in farming that is systematically buying up small farmers or forcing them to rely on government subsidies

Obviously with the exception of cash crops, the profits of which are harvested by Western corporations, there is nothing like this in much of the underdeveloped world. Subsistence, or semi-subsistence, farming remains order of the day. And no, I'm not even going to try and guess what socialist farming will look like

(Of course the great thing about capitalist agriculture is that it employs fewer and fewer people. Even these tend to be increasingly paid labourers. This frees up labour for proletarianisation and renders the agricultural sector less and less important)

I suspect that behind this claim might lie the belief that you can somehow have "socialism in one country" which would explain why you apparently see the need to for every country to be industrialised - in case one country achieved socialism and not the rest

Actually its my Marxism. Without an industrial proletariat you will not have a socialist revolution. Period. Nor, in the absence of a proletariat, can socialism be 'imported' to a less developed region on the bayonets of some advancing Red Army

But this isnt possible anyway and for this reason I reject this argument. The level of industrialisation however spatially patchy it may be is already more than adequate to sustain a global socialist society as it is

What? The level of industrialisation today is not adequate to sustain a global capitalist society. If it were then there would not be subsistence farming in Africa or pitiful living conditions in Asia

On another note, you cannot simply take an aggregate level of industrialisation and claim that this is somehow enough. What does it matter to the peasants of the Congo if Delaware is an advanced industrial society? What's the connection between the two? The creation of a socialist society in the Congo is the task of the people of the Congo; ergo it is the industrialisation levels of the Congo that are relevant there. You cannot simply dismiss spatial considerations so. This includes at national level - any socialist revolution in China would take very different forms in its industrialised heartlands and the peasant dominated west

Indeed , the logic of your argument would seem to suggest that the chances of socialism in the so called post-industrial societies that have undergone tertiarisation with the growth of the services sector has in some sense receded given the inordinate emphasis you place on "industrialisation". It seems to suggest a kind of workerist notion that you cannot be a socialist if you dont work in a factory and wear a cloth cap

When did I ever suggest that an office worker was not a member of the proletariat?

No that is not what I am saying as you must surely be aware. As you know full welll I have always maintained that socialism can be introduced only when a majority understand and want it. It cannot be imposed from above or imported from without. The readiness of workers and peasants in Nepal or anywhere else to embrace socialism implies that workers elsewhere are also socialist minded becuase socialist ideas cannot be contained or confined in one part of the part of the world anyway

So its as possible for the Nepalese peasants to create a socialist society as easily as, say, German workers?

But why? You have already said yourself that you have a "thin veneer of a bourgeoisie presiding over a peasant dominated economy". So presumably what you are wanting is a more thoroughgoing bourgeois revolution but to what end?

I was merely quoting yourself from a past post

State capitalism is no answer at all even if it were possible to implement in an era of neoliberalism and structural adjustment policies. This is why I asked of people who advocate so called "anti-imperialism" to clarify precisely what it is they want in terms of the pattern of economic development. Is it autarky that they advocate? But this is almost certainly bound to fail to deliver what they hope for. In fact in many ways it is a recipe for disaster in capitalist terms. Many third world countires, for example, simply lack a sufficiently sizeable market to permit economies of scale to come into play in many lines of production. If on the other hand, they seek to maintain trading and other links with the outside world and in particular, the more advanced countries with all their technological and economic might at their disposal, then what becomes of the whole argument about so called "anti-imperialism"? Another reason why I think it is all so irrelevent

Well that's a different question and historically how to deal with the peasantry has been a difficult one for socialists

For what its worth, I believe that further capitalist development is possible in underdeveloped nations. We're seeing it happen right now in East Asia. There several nations - most notably the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea - have emerged from protectionist regimes with strong industrial bases in place. In doing so they are catching up with Japan which made the same leap over a century ago. There's no question in my mind that this is a welcome development - it may not be socialism but these new societies are obviously far preferable to the pre-capitalist economic formations that they are leaving behind

I would be perfectly happy to see such industrial growth continue, on the understanding that every new factory and every new industrial town brings these societies closer to socialism

[robbo203]

Did I say feudal? My mistake, its a poor choice of word to use outside of Europe. Pre-capitalist is better. I deal with the peasant question below

Your original claim was that there was a "thin veneer" of bourgeoisie running an economy "still run along feudal lines". Of course, in Marxian terms it makes no sense to talk about the bourgeosie without its dyadic opposite, the working class (just as it makes no sense to talk about a so called "workers state" without the existence of an exploitative bourgeoisie). Even in Africa which is the continent that probably best fits your model, there is of course a degree of proletarianisation or semi proletarianism. Its small but it is not unimportant. "Precapitalist" is indeed a better choice of words because its is more comprehensive than "feudal" Feudalistic relations might appy more obviously to the haciendas of Latin America and elsewhere but I think it is of limited import (how much "feudalism" is there in sub-Saharan Africa for instance?). But the real point is that that you have a mixture of pre-capitalist and capitalist relationships in the so called Third World and not just the former over which your thin veneer of bourgesoise prevail

Which is really the crux of the issue. You can talk all you want about ideology or telecommunications but the reality is that if the economic base is not advanced enough then there will be no socialist revolution. Its not a matter of making sure that people are "socialist minded" enough... or rather only certain classes have the potential to become "socialist minded" and thus create a socialist society

I reject this argument completely (more anon) . You are still working with the assumption that it is necessary for the the economic base to be developed everywhere in order to for there to be socialism. BUt I would argue to the contrary that socialism can only be a global system and therefore what we need to be looking at is the productive potential at the global level to support what must necessarily be a global alternative to capitalism. Your line of reasoning lends credence to the "socialism in one country" which I think is quite fallacious.

A state of affairs that has existed for... well, for millennia. Here you are guilty of conflating the market with capitalism. Peasant households have always traded surplus produce on various local markets. By your definition capitalist society has existed in Europe alone for over a thousand years! For example, the average Russian peasant of 1914, unquestionably backwards and existing in semi-feudal conditions, sold up to 40% of his produce on the market. Could he be said to exist in capitalist society?

Of course not. Capitalism has a distinct set of features that differentiates it from previous economic models. Chief amongst these are wage slavery, production for profit (as captured by the famous MCM equation), supremacy of the market, mass investment in society's productive forces, etc, and, of course, an proletariat whose labour underpins all the above. That's capitalism and that does not exist in many parts of the world today

This question of conflating the market with capitalism - look there is nothing essentially different between market transactions involving the use of money that might have been conducted 1000 years ago and market transactions involving the use of money today when you pop into your local supermarket. The same with wage labour. There was wage labour in ancient Rome for example. What makes capitalism capitalism has to do with the centrality of these phenomena in economic life - the generalisation of commodity production and wage labour. Now I am quite happy to agree that when we are talking about the third world there is clearly still a significant non-capitalist sector but by the same token there is also a significant capitalist sector and in that sense it is simply not true that capitalism does "not exist in many parts of the world today". It does exist but it coexists with pre-capitalist social relations. The generalisation of capitalist features is limited to certain parts of the economy within what is called the modern sector. You would surely not dispute that a mining enterprise set up to export minerals from some third world country or a manufacturer supplying the burgeoning local market for soft drinks in Lagos or Nairobi are not examples of capitalist enterrpises would you?

As for the geographic spread of subsistence farming, David Griggs (An Introduction to Agricultural Geography, 1995), while acknowledging the vagueness of the term, states that "those whose first aim is to provide their family's food and other necessities, and for whom sales for cash are secondary, are dominant in much of Asia, Africa, and parts of Latin America". This is supported by an analysis of purchased agricultural inputs - in the West they typically form over 50% of the gross output whereas in Asia & Latin America the value of inputs is only 25% of outputs. Sub-Saharan Africa is a mere 10%. These figures are a good indicator as to the complexity and advancement of the agricultural process - inputs would be the likes of chemical fertilisers, specialised seeds, mechanical aids, etc - and lower figures obviously indicate more basic subsistence farming. By these or any other standard (including mechanisation, labour power, productivity, fertilisers, etc) farming in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America resembles subsistence farming far more than anything seen in (most of) Europe for at least fifty years

I'd give Griggs far more weight than the link you provided, if only because the latter claims that subsistence farming has not been a feature of African agriculture, for or less, for a century or so. In which case it died out in Africa some decades before Europe or N America!

I think you have misunderstood the point that the above link was making. He was talking about reliance upon subsistence alone and in fact Grigg concurs with him on this point. Most farming as I stated in my previous post is a combination of subsistence farming and petty commodity production. Pure subsistence farming is rare indeed. You refer to purchased agricultural inputs in Asia and South America representing 25% of gross output. This is actually even higher than I expected and gives even more weight to my criticism of your point about susbsistence farmers having only a tenuous connection with the capitalist market. How do you imagine farmers there acquire the means to purchase these inputs if not through the sale of either their labour power or their products?

But my point is this. Even allowing for the fact that yes there is a degree of subsistence farming in places like Africa (although for the most part it coexists with commercial agriculture), your claim was that the "vast majority of Africa, huge swathes of Asia and S America, and even some corners of Europe rely on subsistence agriculture for their livelihood." This is not even strictly true of the rural population alone which as I have pointed out rely on a combination of subsistence and petty commodity production - not just subsistence production alone. And it is certainly not true of the African population as a whole. In 2000 , 37% of the population of Africa was urbanised (and this is projected to grow to 45% in 2015). How is it conceivable that this urban poplation can be overwhelming reliant on subsistence agriculture?

As in have factories cover every last inch of the globe? Of course not, agriculture is a necessity after all. However, like the difference between cottage industry and modern industry, there is a difference between pre-capitalist farming and capitalist farming. The latter first made an appearance in the West in the form of small farms of the 19th C that largely supplanted the existing peasant societies by dividing up the land into more profitable lots and driving the latter into the cities. Commercial farmers of this ilk were an integral component of capitalism and - possessing larger lots, hired labour, and more advanced technology - they were primarily geared towards production for the market. In the last few decades however even this model that been largely rendered obsolete in the West with the emergence of a grand bourgeoisie in farming that is systematically buying up small farmers or forcing them to rely on government subsidies

Obviously with the exception of cash crops, the profits of which are harvested by Western corporations, there is nothing like this in much of the underdeveloped world. Subsistence, or semi-subsistence, farming remains order of the day. And no, I'm not even going to try and guess what socialist farming will look like

(Of course the great thing about capitalist agriculture is that it employs fewer and fewer people. Even these tend to be increasingly paid labourers. This frees up labour for proletarianisation and renders the agricultural sector less and less important)

Here too you are suffering from certain misconceptions. You seem to be favouring capitalist agriculture on the grounds that it frees up labour for proletarianisation (actually in the many parts of the third world this is questionable - the freed up erstwhile peasant farmers simply join the vast and ever expanding industrial reserve army whose economic participation is mainly confined to the informal sector). What you dont seem to realise that at least in terms of output per hectare so called traditional agriculture is vastly more efficient than capitalist agricuture (see Paul Richards Indigenous Agricultural Revolution). Yet this is what you apparently favour getting rid of in the vain hope that those evicted from the traditional agriculture might become proletarianised. So we have here an odd situation. I actually favour the continuation of subsistence farming and view with alarm the threats that it faces from the commercial sector. You, on the other hand, greatly exaggerate the importance of the subsistence agriculture and favour getting rid of it. I would respond that this will not result in the hoped for proletarianisation (that might have happened in Europe but in the Third world the situation is vastly different). It would also undermine the prospect of socialism because it will take away the experiential reality of transcending capitalism with production for use

Actually its my Marxism. Without an industrial proletariat you will not have a socialist revolution. Period. Nor, in the absence of a proletariat, can socialism be 'imported' to a less developed region on the bayonets of some advancing Red Army

Of course socialism canbnot be imported on the bayonets of some advancing red army. I think we can safely discard this Aunt sally. The question is do you need a proletariat and still more an "industrial proletariat" in order for socialism to come about and if so to what extent.

Basically the logic of your argument is that unless you are an industrial proletariat you cannot really become a socialist. This is curious. You agree that an office worker is a member of the proletariat but then why do you place such inordinate emphasis on the need for an industrial proletariat. In the West most workers are not part of the industrial proletariat. The teriary sector has long outstripped the secondary and primary sectors in terms of workforce numbers for most countries. Does this mean the prospect of socialism has diminished because only a small number of workers are industrial proletarians

OK so maybe you mean "proletariat" not simply industrial proletariat. But here too I absolutely reject your claim. To suggest that it is not possible for anyone but a proletariat to become a socialist is unnecessarily dogmatic. Marx and Engels talked of the more far sighted members of the bourgeoise coming to support the socialist revolution. How much more likely are the non proletarianised impovershed masses of Africa or Asia to do this. As I said before, I know comrades in many parts of Africa - west, east , central and southern - who are organised on the basis of wanting to bring about a genuine non-market anti-statist alternative to capitalism. They come from countries in which there is only a relatively small proletarian component. But they arre just as knowledgeable and clued up about capitalism as anyone on this list. There is nothing to stop you becoming a socialist just becuase you live in the Gambia or Uganda

What? The level of industrialisation today is not adequate to sustain a global capitalist society. If it were then there would not be subsistence farming in Africa or pitiful living conditions in Asia

We are talking about the productive potential for socialism now. Of course capitalism is incapable of realising this potential. This is the whole point of wanting to get rid of capitalism - to release this potential which is imprisoned and restrained within the framework of generalised commodity production. A major aspect of this potential would be the immediate cessation of all those pointless occupations in capitalism that are purely related to the functional needs of the system istelf and are not socially useful in any way - from banks to pay departments to a thousand and one other useless activities. This would immediately more or less double the avialable labour power and resources for socially useful production. This is only one aspect of the productive potential that socialism would immediately release; there are plenty of others. Globally the technological potential to sustain a socialist society has long been in existence; your mistake is to read off from the conditions you perceive to operate in the world today under capitalism and take these as given without understanding how the picture would be radically transformed in a socialist society

On another note, you cannot simply take an aggregate level of industrialisation and claim that this is somehow enough. What does it matter to the peasants of the Congo if Delaware is an advanced industrial society? What's the connection between the two? The creation of a socialist society in the Congo is the task of the people of the Congo; ergo it is the industrialisation levels of the Congo that are relevant there. You cannot simply dismiss spatial considerations so. This includes at national level - any socialist revolution in China would take very different forms in its industrialised heartlands and the peasant dominated west

Of course I am aware of the spatial inequalities that exist under capitalism. One of the foremost tasks of a socialist would be strive towards a more even distribution of resoruces. BUt at the back of your argument I think still lies the assumption that you can have socialism in one country. You cannot. Socialism has to be be a global society and the movement to socialism will be a global one, irrespective of whether some parts of the world are more proletarianised than others

So its as possible for the Nepalese peasants to create a socialist society as easily as, say, German workers?

It is no more possible for Nepalese peasants to create a socialist society on their own than it is for German workers to do the same.

For what its worth, I believe that further capitalist development is possible in underdeveloped nations. We're seeing it happen right now in East Asia. There several nations - most notably the PRC, Taiwan, South Korea - have emerged from protectionist regimes with strong industrial bases in place. In doing so they are catching up with Japan which made the same leap over a century ago. There's no question in my mind that this is a welcome development - it may not be socialism but these new societies are obviously far preferable to the pre-capitalist economic formations that they are leaving behind

I would be perfectly happy to see such industrial growth continue, on the understanding that every new factory and every new industrial town brings these societies closer to socialism

This view might have had some plausiblity back in the mind 19th century. Today it is a complete and utter anarchronism. Sorry, but we just do need more "capitalist development". It just creates more poverty , more misery, more undermining of local agricultural system that allow people to feed themselves more effectively than throgh the market. In fact, in all probability more capitalist development may mortally threaten the prospect of the very thing we want to bring about - socialism - through ecological catastrophe and devastating wars or some combination of the two.

The prospect of a completely alienated proletariat with no further organic links with any kind of activity based on production for use is in my view a recipe for the complete incorporation and cooption of the proletariat into capitalism. This is where our approiaches differ radically. I actually hold that the socialist revolution has to be driven at least in part on positive examples of the transcendence of the commodity relationship. It cannot be driven purely negatively or reactively by class struggle. That is a far to mechanistic and deterministic way of looking at things. The new paradigm we should be looking to must involve a synthesis of both

[Zurdito]

Have you read the theory of Permanent Revolution?

[robbo203]

Have you read the theory of Permanent Revolution?

Bits of it. Why do you ask?

[Zurdito]

Bits of it. Why do you ask?

I thought it was relevant to the discussion, as it is anti-imperialist but defends the class independence and leading role of the proletariat.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Imperialism musn't be ignored and should be challenged from a class struggle perspective instead of accepting a 'liberated' Capitalist alternative to imperialism.

[YKTMX]

Imperialism isn't really a problem - god, only from the mouth from Westerner would this sentence come.

Anti-imperialism is a neccessary and unconditional part of a principled revolutionary politics. It is not an optional extra that one can dispense with when one finds the actions of anti-imperialist movements "distasteful". For socialists in imperialists country to practice "ambivalence" or "neutrality" is the worst kind of cowardice and class collaboration.

Socialism is not something built in spite of imperialism, it is built on the ashes of imperialism.

[robbo203]

Imperialism isn't really a problem - god, only from the mouth from Westerner would this sentence come.

Anti-imperialism is a neccessary and unconditional part of a principled revolutionary politics. It is not an optional extra that one can dispense with when one finds the actions of anti-imperialist movements "distasteful". For socialists in imperialists country to practice "ambivalence" or "neutrality" is the worst kind of cowardice and class collaboration.

Socialism is not something built in spit of imperialism, it is built on the ashes of imperialism.

The problem is this. Imperialism is a symptom of capitalism; it is grounded in capitalism. All nation states are latently or manifestly imperialist even the little ones. Some are much more obviously imperialist than others and for obvious reasons but all nation-states without exception are capitalist - indeed, the nation-state is a construct of capitalism - and since the basic dynamic of capital is basically expansionist this is necessarily reflected in the behaviour , potential or actual, of nation-states themselves . Yes, even those cast in the role of "victims" of imperialism. If imperialism involves inter alia the military invasion of one country by another what does that make - lets say, for the sake of argument -Tanzania's invasion of Uganda a while back? Was Tanzania acting as an imperialist power or not. What I am saying here is that imperialism is relative but at the same time universal to capitalism

Insofar as imperialism is a symptom of the problem - global capitalism - then you can legitmately say as you do that "Anti-imperialism is a neccessary and unconditional part of a principled revolutionary politics" but only in the sense that you can equally say anti-racism or anti-sexism is also a "neccessary and unconditional part of a principled revolutionary politics". The problem comes with what exactly you are supposed to do with this "anti-imperialism". If anti-imperialism leads you into the murky waters of supporting national liberation struggles then I am afraid you thereby relinquish any claim whatsoever to be considered a revolutionary any longer. It would be equivalent to saying workers of one particular so called "race" should be supported rather than another or workers of one gender and not the other. Reverse racism and sexism is also sexist and racist and therefore should be opposed. Supporting this country against that country should be opposed on precisely the same grounds. It undermines working class transnationality and reinforces the illusion that workers and capitalists have a common identity and set of interests embodied in something called the nation state

So I am quite happy to see myself as an anti-imperialist who also opposes nationalism and so called national liberation struggles. But really what this boils down to is that you oppose getting involved in inter-capitalist rivalries. OK fair enough. But is this not just equivalent to saying we refuse to support capitalism's wars

If you want make it mean much more than that then , be warned - you are treading on some very treacherous grounds indeed

[YKTMX]

All nation states are latently or manifestly imperialist even the little ones.

This is true but it's completely abstract and irrelevant. We are not going to get a "re-run" of human history. The states that have developed into the imperialist states are always going to be the dominant states in one sense or another, notwithstanding "usurpers" from the East. The fact that all bourgeois nation-states, at the entirely abstract and theoretical level, are "proto-imperialist" is, I have to say, completely useless in deciding how revolutionary socialists orientate themselves in the here and now.

If anti-imperialism leads you into the murky waters of supporting national liberation struggles then I am afraid you thereby relinquish any claim whatsoever to be considered a revolutionary any longer. It would be equivalent to saying workers of one particular so called "race" should be supported rather than another or workers of one gender and not the other. Reverse racism and sexism is also sexist and racist and therefore should be opposed. Supporting this country against that country should be opposed on precisely the same grounds. It undermines working class transnationality and reinforces the illusion that workers and capitalists have a common identity and set of interests embodied in something called the nation state

I completely and resolutely oppose almost everything in that. Firstly, I wholeheartedly support all legitimate national liberation movements and I don't see how I could be a principled revolutionary socialist if I didn't do so. Secondly, being an anti-imperialist is not like "supporting" one race over another, as you somewhat oddly claimed. Being an anti-imperialist, in a imperialist country, is about opposing the attempts of your ruling class to subjugate, exploit, rape, murder and oppress other people in other places in the world. One neccessary part of that stance (opposition to war and the slaughter of brown people in distant lands) is that you support the right of those people under assault to defend their homes, their families, their neighbours and their communities from invading armies. If one fails to do this, and instead insists that the invading armies are a "side-issue" to the class struggle, not only do you neglect your duties as a socialist, but you also condemn yourself to complete isolation.

How do you think it is the Lebanese Communist Party, or the PFLP, or IRSP, got a hearing for their socialist ideas? Not by idly standing by and spouting nonsense about the "objective transnational class-interests" of the British squaddie and the young Irish girl in Derry he's trying to murder, but by stepping in and DEFENDING THOSE COMMUNITIES. Anti-imperialism is not something abstract - it's not something that some bizarre reading of Marx can make "go away". It's real and it's immediate. Do you support the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah against the Americans or not? Do you support the barricades in Free Derry or not?

These are, or were, immediate issues to do with defence of working class communities - as well as the wider issues of capitalist imperialism.

It undermines working class transnationality and reinforces the illusion that workers and capitalists have a common identity and set of interests embodied in something called the nation state

Let me shock you: working class "transnationality" is a myth. It doesn't exist. Working people, at this very moment, are murdering each other left, right and centre all over the globe, almost always in the interests of rich men.

You seem to think that declaring "transnationality" is enough. I don't. I think we need to build it concretely, not just in theory. I would hope you agree with that.

The question is: how do we go about it? You seem to think the way to convince the people of south Lebanon, for instance, of the centrality of class struggle is to tell them that Hezbollah (the men defending their homes from the baby-killers) are just as bad as the baby-killers. I don't.

I think they way to win people to socialist ideas, to ideas about internationalism and class solidarity, is precisely to bring down the imperialist states, since they do the most to further and perpetuate nationalist ideas, in the oppressed and the oppressing nations. When Marx says "working people have no country", he posits an "ought". He knows very well that working people do have countries. Nation-states are a material fact of the world that no amount of wishful thinking is going to dissolve. One of the ways, the only way in fact, of overcoming divisions between workers is to end the oppression of some nations by another, to end imperialism.

This is just an unavoidable conclusion.

[robbo203]

I completely and resolutely oppose almost everything in that. Firstly, I wholeheartedly support all legitimate national liberation movements and I don't see how I could be a principled revolutionary socialist if I didn't do so. Secondly, being an anti-imperialist is not like "supporting" one race over another, as you somewhat oddly claimed. Being an anti-imperialist, in a imperialist country, is about opposing the attempts of your ruling class to subjugate, exploit, rape, murder and oppress other people in other places in the world. One neccessary part of that stance (opposition to war and the slaughter of brown people in distant lands) is that you support the right of those people under assault to defend their homes, their families, their neighbours and their communities from invading armies. If one fails to do this, and instead insists that the invading armies are a "side-issue" to the class struggle, not only do you neglect your duties as a socialist, but you also condemn yourself to complete isolation..

You are confusing two quite different things here. Of course one must oppose wars and the subjugation, exploitation rape and murder of people - not just brown people but all people and everywhere. But I emphatically deny this has anything to do with so called national liberation struggle. In fact the history of national liberation struggles has demonstrated time and time again that, more often than not, these newly liberated bourgeois states in the so called Third World are the very one's that in turn proceed to inflict murder rape and assault on "their" own people. So what do you then do? Condone them having given them your support in their "national liberation struggle". If so, you would then show yourself to be a complete hypocrite and your actions totally lacking in credibility. If not , this would show up the utter folly of supporting national liberation struggle and being suckered in by its liberatory bourgeois rhetoric These are the kind of quandaries and quagmires that the argument in favour of supporting national liberation struggles will inevitably lead to.

It is simply not possible to be a socialist and advocate nationalism. Nationalism assumes a common identity and set of interests between workers and capitalists within something called the nation-state which itself is a capitalist institution. Nationalism thus effectively obscures and diverts the class struggle. By supporting nationalism you support capitalism. It is the ideological weapon by which the capitalist class divides us and then rules over us

Being a socialist does not mean condeming yourself to complete isolation by refusing to get engaged in nationalist struggles. This is a complete myth. Being a socialist means supprting fellow members of our class whereever they may be and irrespective of their so called nationality in resisting capitalism and its effects. In fact , the best way you can do that is by completely detaching such working class resistance to capitalism from the bourgeois project of national liberation not just in some "distant land" but everywhere including right on your very doorstep

[YKTMX]

In fact the history of national liberation struggles has demonstrated time and time again that, more often than not, these newly liberated bourgeois states in the so called Third World are the very one's that in turn proceed to inflict murder rape and assault on "their" own people. So what do you then do? Condone them having given them your support in their "national liberation struggle"...These are the kind of quandaries and quagmires that the argument in favour of supporting national liberation struggles will inevitably lead to.

No, of course not. This is a completely false dilemma. You support national liberation movements on the basis they are fighting for the liberation of nations, not on any other basis. I can't imagine why this is a particularly vexatious point for so many comrades.

We support Hezbollah and Hamas when they oppose Zionism; when they campaign for the more reactionary political elements of Islamism, we oppose them and argue for socialist alternatives, or support the viable socialist alternatives that exist.

It only appears "hypocritical" because people tend to get over-excited and think that our support for national liberation movements must be dependent on them having some "reasonable" post-struggle political program. It isn't. I would have supported the Viet Minh despite the fact that they were openly and proudly Stalinist in their political doctrines. I support Irish Republicanism despite the influence of sometimes quite dogmatic forms of Roman Catholicism on the movement.

Being a socialist means supprting fellow members of our class whereever they may be and irrespective of their so called nationality

No, it doesn't. I don't support members of our class who are scabs over those who are strikers. I don't see any "equivalence" there. I don't support members of our class who beat their wives over those who respect women. I don't support racism, "irrespective" of its origins. Similarly, I don't support imperialist, but "working class", soldiers when they're in the killing fields of Fallujah. I absolutely defend the need to "choose" the Iraqi resistance over the U.S. Marine Corps. Not because I'm opposed to international solidarity, but because I recognise that it's only with the defeat of imperialism than class solidarity can become an effective and real condition, rather than an abstract "potential".

[robbo203]

No, of course not. This is a completely false dilemma. You support national liberation movements on the basis they are fighting for the liberation of nations, not on any other basis. I can't imagine why this is a particularly vexatious point for so many comrades.
".

Its very simple. Its vexatious becuase the whole idea of supporting the so called liberation of nations is one that no genuine socialist can accept. It is the liberation of our class not some abstraction called the nation that is our concern. Nation states are a construct of capitalism. To promote the liberation of nations is necessarily to suggest a commonality of interests and identity between the workers and capitalists that compriise these so called nations. It is necessarly to obscure and divert the class struggle

No, it doesn't. I don't support members of our class who are scabs over those who are strikers. I don't see any "equivalence" there. I don't support members of our class who beat their wives over those who respect women. I don't support racism, "irrespective" of its origins. Similarly, I don't support imperialist, but "working class", soldiers when they're in the killing fields of Fallujah. I absolutely defend the need to "choose" the Iraqi resistance over the U.S. Marine Corps. Not because I'm opposed to international solidarity, but because I recognise that it's only with the defeat of imperialism than class solidarity can become an effective and real condition, rather than an abstract "potential".

When I said supporting members of our class I was talking in the context of the circumstance you were describing - Workers being subject to exploitation, rape and mrder etc. I certainly dont support certain ideas held or actions committed, by members of our class. Otherwise I would hardly be attacking their nationalistic outlook would I?

[kalu]

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?

This definition is wrong, imperialism refers to political control over a foreign territory. What you are referring to, "economic domination," is known as neocolonialism and is seen as a subsequent effect of imperialism after many formerly colonized territories gained independence as newly created nation-states.

While I would agree that economic autarky proposals such as "import substitution" have failed miserably and have provided excuses for bloated state bureaucracies, there can be no doubt that neocolonialism remains a significant question given the continuing geopolitical and economic dominance of Western* countries through such institutions as the IMF, World Bank and NATO. Anyone who's seen the effects of IMF structural adjustment programs across the world, and the neocolonial imposition of "austerity measures," can attest to this sort of imperial power.

Historically, anti-imperialism and self-determination go hand-in-hand. They are not mere battles between "little capitalist" and "big capitalist," but struggles for the very liberation of colonized peoples from foreign, Western rule. Indigenous rule can definitely be oppressive, but remember the postcolonial state is an inheritance of Western imperialism. If anything, we have not been nearly as anti-imperialist as we should be, meaning we have not significantly challenged categories of Western modernity such as "the state."

On both an empirical and theoretical level, neocolonialism is alive and well, as Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank, Samir Amin and many other serious Marxian political economists will tell you. Empirically, the US is the current dominant, imperial power insofar as it can rule other populations (see its post-WWII invasions and interventions well documented by people like William Blum). Theoretically, Western modernity has overpowered and mutated indigenous frameworks to create frightening new creatures of modernity such as the postcolonial state. No, imperialism is not simply about "Foreign Direct Investment," but the very problem of defining a radical politics in a world criss-crossed by different logics of rule and exploitation. How, for example, is a Free Trade Zone possible on the southern side of the US-Mexico border, and not the northern side?

Marx's conception of capitalism's expansive logic can definitely be considered one type of "imperialism," but imperialism as a specifically historical phenomenon--the singular moment of modernity and the creation of "the West" in 1492--cannot be tossed aside for economistic and deterministic analyses that ignore interconnected struggles, such as the liberation of the colonized. Mind you, I don't want to spatially incarcerate the "colonized" as forever "local" in opposition to the "global" colonizer--witness for example postcolonial migrations between the West Indies and Britain. This is exactly where postcolonialism's thematic is appropriate, which redefines the West as a theoretical space. Anyways, we ought to not just think about proletariat/bourgeoisie, but colonized/colonizer to examine the mutual constitution of capitalism, modernity, and "the West."

I recommend reading Frantz Fanon, and taking some time to admire the struggles of people like Amilcar Cabral, Thomas Sankara, Patrice Lumumba, Bhagat Singh, General Sandino, the Zapatistas, the Mau Mau, FRELIMO, the Lanka Sama Samaja Party...I think you get the idea.

*This label is admittedly vague. Some have advocated replacing West with the "global North" given several East Asian countries' rise to economic parity with the US and Europe. Others have offered the term "North Atlantic" to refer to the geographic specificity of the US and Europe. I am discussing the West both in the sense of the latter and in a more theoretical sense as a political project based on the continuing dominance and imposition of a univocal "modernity."

On a side note, kudos to YKTMX for his excellent posts. I feel much the same comrade, and have debated this issue with many Westerners who seem to forget that their call for abstract "universality" can cover class collaboration and exploitation of brown and black bodies.