HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
1/2 Re: Is the Last Empire Falling Down? [07.04.02] [Note: This goes to the Communism mailing list at http://homepage.eircom.net/~kampf/ and to the Usenet newsgroups 'alt.society.revolution', 'alt.politics. socialism.mao', 'swnet.politik', 'eunet.politics', 'alt.politics.socialism', 'alt.politics.radical-left', 'alt.activism', 'alt.politics.communism', 'de.soc. politik.misc' and 'alt.politics.india.communist'.] Greg Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, to the Communism list on 09:12 2002-04-04 +0800: >Rolf I think you are mixing to separate things up when you >identify the fall of the bourgeois and the last imperial >power together. And I think we must understand what is >happening historically. [Rolf, earlier:] >>The Last Empire is not "merely" US imperialism but the >>entire rule of the bourgeoisie in the world, whose big >>gendarme of course is US imperialism." >World bourgeois rule, that is the class becoming a world >ruling class, is in contradiction to the US rogue super- >power - state dominance of world affairs and only the >bourgeoisie lucky enough to be able to influence it, as >against the interests of the class as an international >whole. > >What is going on at the moment is a schemism within the >bourgeois world class, where the last imperial power is >asserting itself against bourgeois internationalism. On what's happening now as a whole, I don't agree with you, Greg. True, to some certain extent, US imperialism *is* acting as a "rogue" power within the international bourgeoi- sie, *is* "asserting itself against bourgeois internationa- lism". I didn't mention that aspect in my last posting, written rather quickly. You're right in so far that this is one aspect too. However, it *is* a relatively minor one, I absolutely hold. It above all *is* the desperate fear of the imperialist bourgeoisie everywhere of the people in all countries that's behind the present rather open warfare against the people. A warfare which is engaged in most openly, true enough, by the US imperialists, but which the other relatively big-time reactionaries - the rulers of Russia, China, West Europe - are supporting quite eagerly too, and in close co-operation with US imperialism. Remember that when on 11 September 2001, the US imperialists vilely directed several passenger aircraft, supposedly "hi- jacked" (by some stooges of theirs), to fly smack into the World Trade Center towers and into their own Pentagon, kil- ling upwards of 4,000 people, mainly civilians, and thereby initiating this wave of warfare against the people every- where, neither the Russian nor the Chinese nor the West European bourgeoisie with as much as a whisper indicated publicly who was behind this, as they of course could tell too, but as one man supported the lies of the US imperialists that this was the work of some "terrorists" supposedly "sup- ported by" some of the poor and internationally-oppressed and -exploited countries in the world. (On the facts already at an early stage rather clearly showing what forces *were* behind this, see e.g. www.whatreallyhappened.com, www.emperors-clothes.com or www.psyopNews.com, or #152-155 of my "UNITE! (etc) Info" series.) True enough, the French bourgeoisie apparently did not (at once) go along 100% with Bush's open general declaration of war against the people everywhere on 20.09.2001 (which is one thing that suggests you're right in pointing to the also "rogue" character of the US imperialists' actions too, Greg - but this still *is* a *minor* factor). And then on the following day, there was that devastating explosion in a chemical plant in Tolouse in southern France, killing many and destroying large part of the city. (See my #154en.) But on the whole, the imperialist bourgeoisie elsewhere (the French one too, eventually) *did* gone along with the US imperialists in their warfare against the people. The Rus- sian and the Chinese rulers came out in quite open support of the following US aggression against Afghanistan, despite the fact that this also contained some intentions of US encircle- ment (attempted such, at least) against "their own" territo- ries. And not only the British but also the French, German and Japanese rulers, for instance, contributed troops respec- tively naval units for that aggression too. Now that the Israeli zionists, with massive support by the US imperialists, are perpetrating their particularly large and vile aggression, the other relatively big-time reactio- naries are "having some doubts", true, and this has forced the Bushies too to put some hypocritical (purported) "brakes on", but there's no really effective counteraction by Russia, by China or by the West European bourgeoisie. What the Frankfurter Rundschau (Germany), for instance, is "complaining" (in a leading article on 05.04) is only that "this escalation in the Middle East and the resulting resis- tance against it" is "now making it more difficult" for the US leaders and some of their allies to engage in one of their further plans: open warfare against Iraq! The "new ballgame" (mentioned by you below) quite in the main *is* one of the whole imperialist bourgeoisie's engaging in rather open warfare against the people in all countries, *not* all that much of their big common gendarme US imperia- lism's acting "quite on its own" as a "rouge" bourgeois superpower. >In short, we are in a new ball-game, this is not a replay of >the past on a bigger scale but the conflict between the end >of imperialism and a not yet emerged bourgeois internationa- >lism. The US is not trying to grab markets but instead in an >effort to break multilateral ties and internationalism >amongst the bourgeoisie it has adopted on-going war to >ensure its pre-eminance. No, quite in the main: To try to "ensure" the continued existence of imperialism as a whole. >We must understand this for what it is as we are entering >the bloody end of imperialism a fitting monument to its >origin in state competition. Everything the US is saying at >the moment is ironically true of itself - it is the rogue >state, it is the world terrorist (as against the national >terrorism it complains of) and it is the truely evil because >it has no future and can only prolong its life by blood. And aren't "your" "Aussie" ruling crooks, and "my" Swedish ruling crooks, for instance, continuing to applaud that world terrorist too, so hotly that it seems their hands must soon get of fire? Because they know that without it, *they* have no future either. >It has reached a stage of embracing perpetual warfare as its >natural state, but this cannot last long., no sooner has it >got its alliance together then the alliance wants influence >over its actions. >The US response, turn on its allies (the most powerful and >strategically important first). The steel Tarifs were not >accidental (piss of the Europeans).... Yes, there you do have a point too, Greg. But will not "the Europeans" (by which I suppose you mean, the *European ruling crooks*, which you somewhat strangely are not diffe- rentiating from the people in Europe) swallow this with not much more than a whimper, in view of their desperate *need* today for that big terrorist who "just happens to" be tramp- ling directly on them too? >..., the support for Isreal's genocide (piss off the Euro- >peans... Since when have *the ruling crooks* here in Europe - whom you *once more* don't differentiate from us others! - really been against some genocide, perpetrated against people in the oppressed countries, say? >...and the Arab states as well). Eating its children (its >carefully fostered allies of over half a century), getting >rid of all forms of international agreement (dispensing with >the Geneva Convention, handing over prisoners to countries >where they can be "legally" tortured, and for the first time >coming into direct conflict with the UN security council are >all predictable). Is it really for the first time? I on my part am not certain about this. It's clear that the UN, in certain periods, has been influenced to a somwhat larger degree by the majority of countries in the world, for instance in 1974 when there was a statement by it correctly saying that zionism *is* a form of racism, this clearly very much to the displeasure of the US imperialists and others, who managed to get that statement retracted later, at some time in the 1990s, when the US and other imperialists again had more control over the UN. But yes, the direct conflict now with the UN security council *is* a certain fact to be noted, at the present time. >Even my country Australia, the most loyal of loyal and un- >questioning supporters..., Well, there's "Aussies" and there's "Aussies" too, who have quite conflicting interests to each other, aren't there; you should *differentiate* concerning "your own" country too, in such a context, shouldn't you, Greg? >...Bush could not even meet with our sycophantic Prime Mi- >nister (US Presidents usually make Australian PMs feel im- >portant), indeed the steel tarifs we a shock here and really >showed our position - mere subjects. None of this makes >sense for an imperial power - what we are seeing is imperial >power itself in contradiction. >What bothers me, is not that this is at all hard to under- >stand, once the right concepts are applied, but that commu- >nists stick to well worn and comfortable phrases and force >reality to fit into them. I don't understand more exactly what you mean by this, Greg. Is it criticism against what I wrote - if so, I'm replying to it here - or against what some others have written or said? >Rolf, this is a general point but one I think you have de- >monstrated. How can there be another imperial superpower >once the US falls apart? >I mean this quite simply and straightforwardly, what could >possibly bring one nation to world supremecy? Nothing, it >just flies in the face of world development, why would the >bourgeoisie promote one section of itself (against all the >international sections) to titular control and automatically >freeze out most of it from direct access to power? I did "speculate" that perhaps at some point in the future, some new "empire" might actually arise, saying too that if so, it could not possibly be long-lived, at least. (See below.) >Of course states are not going to go away, and of course >there will be strong states and weak ones and they will >behave as much as possible in the traditional manner, but >what of the bopurgeoisie as a whole, are there not good >reasons for it creates some form of world order and law, if >only to ensure their ability to exploit and enrich them- >selves all the more? Their "world order and law", that's what we're seeing now, of course. You don't believe, I hope, that it may become *less* openly genocidal and terroristic in the future? [Continued in part 2/2] --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
