(This reply was written in response to a thread on Pen-L, but related to an earlier discussion of Lenin's view and characterization of imperialism and proletarian revolution.) WL. ******* Historically, only capitalist countries which have intervened militarily to establish settler colonies or to set up puppet regimes to facilitate the exploitation of these territories by their own corporations and have been characterized as imperialist by Marxists and others.
In a message dated 1/14/2011 9:10:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _shmage@pipeline.com_ (mailto:shm...@pipeline.com) writes: Are you saying that China today is not capitalist? That Han settlement in Tibet is not massively sponsored by the Chinese regime? That the "Tibet Autonomous Region" does not have a puppet government? That Chinese corporations are not heavily present in Tibet? (and were not even talking about Sinkiang!) Comment Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking to secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating "imperialism" in this era of political domination of speculative finance as a general "imperialism" defeats the mean of this tread: "the end of the imperialist epoch." Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of imperial-colonialism is part of asking the question "end of the imperialist epoch." Lenin's Hobson unraveling of "modern imperialism" of his era was useful because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and political features. Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital (financial-industrial capital); hundreds of millions of slaves of a direct colonial system and the fight amongst direct colonizers for a re-division of an already divided world. This fight for spheres of influence was based in the national productive logic of huge multinational state structures. The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has meant more than "imperial outreach" or a lack of rights of those beings colonized. Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end to the direct colonial system; the end of neo colonialism and the imperial colonization based on financial-industrial capital. The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of the colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule expressed financial-industrial capital. Vietnam Liberation and unification in 1976 is a world book mark on an epoch that began with our revolution of 1776. This does not mean no one of earth is oppressed and exploited through world bourgeois production relations. Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism, has been superseded. America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct "anti-colonial interest" imperialist interest, and then settled the war against the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the Civil War facing a world with colonial states as direct appendage of imperialist state structures preventing its free flow of finance capital beyond Latin America. The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct colonial system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the political and economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political basis for imperialist war in the past century, rather than the economic impetus for war under capitalism, (anarchy of production with war production being a profit center) was the fight for colonies or spheres of influence based on colonial possessions. The fight between imperialist states was not over one huge state colonizing another but over the colonies represented by these massive states. This form of imperialism is very much part of the question "end of the imperialist epoch." The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of finance capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to recreate the direct colonial system. For the German state direct colonialism meant revitalization of economic and social life - "the thousand year rule," or in lay person terms "French wine, Polish hams and Slavic slave women." American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's "Imperialism," sought to recreate the political world leading the charge to wipe direct colonialism from the face the earth. American financial imperialism sought to defeat its enemies and identified them as direct colonizers of the world. It's slogan was "national independence" and self determination of nations up to and including the formation of separate states. This battering ram against the direct colonial system explains why "Uncle Ho" armies entered Hanoi at the close of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled Banner. Then of course came the policy change and the Cold War. This era of financial-industrial capital - finance capital, from direct colony to neo-colony spanned from the results of the Civil War until the 1980's and the Reagan administration. Bush I declared the "New World Order" to the citizens of earth. This meant in my mind the imperialism we had known was being jettisoned from history. Not imperial outreach but imperialism. The imperialist epoch is the epoch of the bourgeoisie rather than Imperial Rome, as its politically dominant sector - based on its connection in commodity production, sought to recreate the world in its interest. Hence, a specific form of imperialism. Each era and epoch has its distinct political-economic interest. What is the political interest of an imperial capital resting on a non-banking financial architecture increasingly driven by notional capital, fiat currency and economic logic increasingly based on notional - imaginary, value? Tibet is no colony, unless the new definition of colony means historically evolved peoples lacking a political state. Tibet is an autonomous region within the multinational state of the Peoples Republic of China. Self determination of nations can also mean autonomous regions within a socialist or capitalist state with the degree of autonomy depending of all kinds of factors. In real life there is no possibility of Tibet forming a separate political state within a multinational state framework. This does not make Tibet a colony, even within a framework of a "capitalist China." Dragging Tibet into a discussion of "the end of the imperialist epoch" adds nothing to examining our brave new world politically dominated by speculative finance. Waistline _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
