FWIW one should also include scholars such as Prabhat Patnaik, Amiya Kumar Bagchi, Makoto Itoh, among others.
Cheers, Anthony On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (This was just posted to the Introduction to Marxism mailing list on > Yahoo.) > > Below you will find a provisional outline for readings apropos of "current > debates on imperialism" that we will be pursuing in common weeks. But first > I want to try to explain why imperialism has become such an important topic > in our epoch, which I date roughly from the end of WWII. > > From the days of Karl Marx to the end of the 1930s, the focus was much more > on how to make a revolution in advanced capitalist countries since the > objective possibility existed in a way that it does not today. Economic > crisis seemed intractable in countries like Italy, France, and Germany while > even Great Britain was shaken by a general strike in 1926. > > With the end of WWII, the advanced capitalist countries entered a period of > economic expansion that has persisted until today. Even though there are > frequent convulsions-such as with the subprime crisis of the current > moment-there is nothing like the mass unemployment workers faced in the > 1930s. > > Many Marxists began to re-theorize class relationships after WWII with an > eye toward understanding the period better. One of the earliest attempts to > grapple with the new situation was mounted by Felix Morrow in the American > Socialist Workers Party. Party leader James P. Cannon predicted a new > depression and inter-imperialist war while Morrow was much more cautious, > especially with respect to Germany where Trotskyism expected working class > militancy of the sort seen in the 1920s: > > To put it bluntly: all the phrases in its prediction about the German > revolution — that the proletariat would from the first play a decisive role, > soldiers' committees, workers' and peasants' soviets, etc. — were copied > down once again in January 1945 by the European Secretariat from the 1938 > program of the Fourth International. Seven years, and such years, had passed > by but the European Secretariat did not change a comma. Exactly the same > piece of copying had been done by the SWP majority in its October 1943 > Plenum resolution in spite of the criticisms of the minority. > > Among the first Marxists to step outside the box and look dispassionately > at the new situation were Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran of the Monthly Review. > They drew two conclusions about the postwar period: one, monopoly capitalism > (ie., imperialism) defined the current epoch; two, the primary > contradictions were not between capitalist and worker in the advanced > countries-at least not to the same extent as the pre-WWII period-but between > the advanced countries as a whole and the 3rd world as a whole. As might be > expected, Monthly Review began to evolve in a Maoist direction. > > The MR analysis has been called "dependency theory" and began to be > challenged in a serious fashion in the 1970s, largely sparked by Robert > Brenner's attack in the New Left Review. Additional voices were heard from > that shared some of Brenner's approach, including Bill Warren, an Irish > Marxist, who went much further and argued that imperialism actually > benefited 3rd world countries by introducing capitalist property relations > and more dynamic and prosperous economies. > > Debates around the question of "dependency theory" have not been limited to > Marxist journals. Within the academy, the debate has raged since the 1970s > with proponents of World Systems theory such as Immanuel Wallerstein > debating Robert Brenner in the pages of academic journals. There was also a > prolonged debate within Latin American studies over these issues, > particularly in the pages of Latin American Perspectives. Andre Gunder Frank > was pilloried above all. He was accused of abandoning Marxism, adapting to > the national bourgeoisie and worse. > > The other controversial aspect of the Monthly Review current was its > seeming dismissal of the working class of the advanced countries, who were > seen as hapless victims of the consumer society rather than agents of > revolutionary change. While Monthly Review was not so nearly as pessimistic > as Herbert Marcuse, the journal did serve as a pole of attraction for New > Leftists who understandably skeptical about claims made by the Trotskyists > on behalf of a revolutionary working class (this would change in 1968 with > the French events). > > Despite the tendency to regard the MR as "revisionist" when it came to the > revolutionary role of the working class, there is some precedent in > classical Marxism for their stance. In 1916, Lenin wrote an article titled > "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism" that states that "the political > institutions of modern capitalism-press, parliament associations, congresses > etc.-have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, > reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the > economic privileges and sops." Does that not describe workers today in the > U.S., particularly white workers? > > Closely related to this is the theory of an aristocracy of labor that the > Australian Democratic Perspective group has adopted. They insist that it is > grounded in classical Marxism but many Marxists disagree with them. We will > review this concept in some detail, especially since the question of the > revolutionary capacity of the working class in imperialist countries is > probably the most critical question facing our movement today. > > If socialist revolution is not on the agenda today for the reasons just > alluded to, perhaps the best thing that radicals can hope for today is a > decline in U.S. power. Is there any basis for seeing American hegemony > coming to an end? By the same token, is the rise of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, > India and China) a way out of the current impasse of imperial invasion and > CIA subversion? > > These issues have been very much the focus of the academic left. At an > Edward Said Conference on Imperialism at Columbia University in 2003, there > were various takes on this question with David Harvey arguing that hegemony > exists in the military realm but only as a way of compensating for declining > economic power. Meanwhile, some scholars associated with Socialist Register > in Canada-including Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin-see the U.S. as just as > powerful as ever, particularly in the economic realm. We will review some of > the more important contributors to this debate. > > Finally, if the chief goal of radicals today is to oppose American > imperialism, which is arguably the most dangerous enemy of humanity in its > entire history, shouldn't the major focus be on opposing imperialism even > when the government under attack does not exemplify socialist ideals and > that moreover represses radicals and socialists within its territorial > boundaries? > > "Anti-imperialism" as a movement has always operated according to its own > logic. For example, Andrew Carnegie was a member of the same > anti-imperialist movement that Mark Twain belonged to, even though he had no > trouble shooting strikers at his steel mills. I am also learning a bit about > the "anti-imperialism" of E.L. Godkin, the founder of the Nation Magazine, > who opposed the annexation of the Dominican Republic in 1870 because the > policy of "absorbing semi-civilized Catholic states" was ill-advised. > > Socialist internationalism seems to have to a Scylla and a Charybdis when > it comes to anti-imperialism. The Scylla would be "humanitarian > interventions" of the sort that Christopher Hitchens and company have > defended. The Charybdis would be adaptation to the governments that are > currently the enemy d'jour, such as Mugabe's or Ahmadinejad's. Trying to > navigate between these two obstacles might be easier if we can get a better > understand of how Marxism dealt with such problems in the past. > > So the agenda for the weeks to follow: > > 1. Dependency theory > > –Sweezy, Baran > –Robert Brenner > –Various Latin American specialists on both sides of the debate > –Bill Warren > > –etc > > 2. Imperialism and the revolutionary potential of the working class > > –Lenin > –The Australian DSP and the aristocracy of labor > –The making of a white working class (Ted Allen, David Roediger, et al) > > 3. U.S. hegemony > > –Immanuel Wallerstein > –David Harvey > –Ellen Meiksins Wood > –Peter Gowans > –Gindis/Panitch > –Patrick Bond > > 4. Anti-imperialism > > –Leon Trotsky (on Finland, Ethiopia, Brazil) > –Sam Marcy's theory of contending blocs > –Selected readings (Michael Chussodovsky et al) > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelaenshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
