******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. *****************************************************************
First, I would like to clarify that it was not my intention to make a vulgar slur against all supporters of the theory of sub-imperialism.
I think that it is wrong for reasons elaborated in the essay to which I provided a link (see also chapter 4 in the book "Anti-Imperialism in the Age of Great Power Rivalry", https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/anti-imperialism-in-the-age-of-great-power-rivalry/)
However, I am fully aware that comrades like Patrick Bond and others are serious thinkers and while I disagree with them on this issue, I had no intention denigrate them.
However, I think that the wrong theory of sub-imperialism opens the road (or provide a justification) for those like Callinicos/IST (and the same is true for the Australian GLW) to justify their abstentionism in the Syrian civil war by referring to Turkey's so-called sub-imperialism. In my opinion, Callinicos is just more consistent than others in designating all possible states around the world as "sub-imperialist" because they supposedly follow (or did follow in the past) an "aggressive foreign policy". In short, when it comes to draw political consequences - and I have emphasized this in various books and pamphlets - the theory of sub-imperialism opens the door to replace a Marxist class characterization of states with a bourgeois-liberal one. This was the idea behind my brief remark on Callinicos's article on Turkey yesterday.
Am 05.03.2020 um 00:40 schrieb Walter Daum via Marxism:
******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ******************** #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. ***************************************************************** Sub-imperialism is a valid and important concept. Callinicos is right that it was introduced by Marini with regard to Brazil, and it has been extended by Patrick Bond and others to South Africa. In the Middle East it might well apply to Iran and Turkey. As I read him, Marini regards a state as sub-imperialist if it is not imperialist on the world scale (it remains exploited by the imperialist powers) but plays an imperialist-like role regionally. Callinicos has abused the term by applying it over-widely and ignoring the “sub” aspect. His tendency, for example, labeled Argentina sub-imperialist in order to avoid taking sides against Britain in the Malvinas/Falklands war in 1982. In effect the IST treated the war as an inter-imperialist conflict. They seem to be doing the same to avoid taking the side of Turkey against Russia, to the extent that for his own reasons and for the moment Erdogan is defending the remnants of the Syrian democratic revolution. The RKOB is right about Callinicos. But his misuse of the term doesn’t mean that sub-imperialism has to be confusing. _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/aktiv%40rkob.net
-- Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG (Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net) www.rkob.net ak...@rkob.net Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314 -- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
