Rob,
Here' another dimension of bourgeois motivation.
For one thing, the bourgeoisie do not do the dying in their wars. Just the
internecine, working class mass murder is an enormous plus for interests of the
bourgeoisie as far as any war is concerned.
War perpetuates nationalist division of the international working class.
Charles Brown
>>> "Charles Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/17/99 11:23AM >>>
Hello Rob,
>>> Rob Schaap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 05/15/99 02:32AM >>>
G'day Chas,
You write:
"Doesn't American imperialism and all imperialism need the INSTITUTION of
war ? Some war , somewhere, regularly ? Otherwise, how could it avoid
disarmament ? And wouldn't disarmament spell the end of capitalism ? World
peace would take away capitalism's ultimate form of creative destruction,
its method of restoring the rate of profit."
Well, war is definitely the ultimate way to resolve excess capacity
problems, but you'd need a big war in the right place to do the job to any
significant degree. War and rumours of war also cost capital a lot. And
then there's the confusing little matter of distinguishing between the
interests of capital in general and capitalists in particular - at any
particular moment, I think you'd have to deploy an institutional analysis
to discern whether you're watching crisis control by or on behalf of
capital in general, or whether you're watching a currently powerful
capitalist or sector get its way.
Charles: Yes, I agree with your critique that that this necessity of war for
capitalism is contradictory. Specific capitalists may be losers as a result or war or
rumor of war. The FROP is based on the fundamental contradictions of capitalism too.
Whether a (European) World War or a colonialist "police action" as in Viet Nam, war is
a contradictory, but necessary gambit for capital. For example. the Russian Revolution
was caused in part by WWI. So, by saying war is necessary for capitalism, I don't mean
to ignore that this necessity is very contradictory. It is one of the primary aspects
of capitalism that should be pushing us to establish socialism, in ultimate negation
of capitalism.
((((((((((((((((
And maybe we should distinguish also between wars that are authored by
capital consciously (I think Vietnam was one), and wars that emanate from
capital relations (more along the quasi-structuralist lines of Lenin's
imperialism thesis - I think both World Wars may have been such events).
Charles: Although, I agree that the etiology of a specific war varies, I would think
that the different species of capitalist war all have some cause in basic
contradictions of capitalism as a system.
(((((((((((((((((((
You also write:
"There would be no way to impose the will of the IMF and the big banks and
financial institutions, no way to collect the debts which are the basis of
neo-imperialist control of the neo-colonies. Brazil and Mexico could just
default and what would Wall Street do ?"
Again, war is sufficient for this, but not generally necessary. I think
it's part of the story in the Yugoslav instance, but most of the world was
brought to heel by transnational finance without much war. A bit of debt
manipulation, perhaps.
Charles: I'd like to hear more from you on this. It seems to me that in the larger
historical context, the bringing to heel by transnational finance without "much" war
would not have been possible without the bigger wars and WARS to set an example
establishing military dominance. Besides out right war there was military support
fascist regimes and counterrevolutionary terrorists, etc., undeclared wars,
assassinations, the whole nine yards of neo-colonial state repression. I don't see
transnational finance having much influence without the underlying military control
backing them up, even if the open violence is somewhat separate in time.
((((((((((((((((((
Targetting research and development at getting
around public utilities (eg the way satellites were built to offer
end-to-end autonomy from public telcos, or deploying market power to make
new technologies expensive for governments - as in the health sector),
dressing up the insurance sector as the health sector (to undermine public
health structures), pushing the debt buttons (by way of currency
manipulation and ratings agencies) to encourage governments to pull money
out of their public sectors (eg undermining public schooling), and so on.
I suspect this a bigger story than war when it comes to the explaining the
development of the finance sector's hegemony. Doug has an interesting bit
in *Wall St* about how New York's political autonomy was destroyed by a few
bankers.
Charles: I completely agree with this ( and I learn something here from you on the
technique of imperialism). But these methods of control are dependent upon first
establishing miltary/state domination for the imperialists and their comprador
bourgeoisies.
(((((((((((((((((
I guess I'm banging on thus because both world wars ended up presenting
capitalism with enormous threats to its hegemony. We wouldn't have got the
Soviet Union without WW1, and widespread national independence agitations
(many inspired by socialists - eg. the PKK in Indonesia, Ho's mob in
Indochina, and Mao's mob in China), a suddenly enormously powerful SU, and
fleetingly resolute social democrat parties throughout the west all issued
from WW2.
Charles: As I say above, you are correct to point to this enormous contradictoriness
of war for capitalism. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's a fundamental
contradiction of capitalism. Just as it cannot help it self in pursuing maximum
profits and thereby generates economic crashes, so it is with war, which can a major
cause of revolutions and liberation movements that threaten to end the whole
capitalist system.
In other words, Marx and Lenin are serious about this dialectics stuff.
((((((((((((((((((((
If a war gets big enough to destroy, say, 20% of world capital, it might
also be big enough to destroy capitalism in particular and humanity in
general. You'd have to be awfully desperate to muck around with stakes
like that.
Of course, plain stupidity always has a role ...
Charles: I agree with you. Let me know if the dialectics of it discussed above
addresses what you are saying. Revolution or barbarism or self-extermination is what
we face. The "stupidity" is not a problem of individuals , but the systematic
contradictions. The capitalists cannot help themselves. They must do things that are
stupid for most of humanity.
Peace,
Charles
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
