Julien to Nestor, Tony, Mac, and last but not least the man who doesn't post
enough, Rob.
Nestor:
>Imperialism is the mechanism by which those countries that
>succesfully completed their national revolutions and managed to
>organize self-centered capitalist economies extract surplus value
>from the rest of humankind. Indonesia does not belong to that club,
>it has never had.
If you want. But your definition is different than the ones of the others (see
lower) and also different from the common sense definition. Again, we
should define problematic words in the first place and not beginning in the 36th
thread of the thread (you're obviously not the one I'm aiming at, I'm talking for
all of us, incl. me). Or maybe we should try to avoid controversial labeling and
name-calling altogether.
>There is no "plage on both houses" here. Let us assume [...]
> not that I believe that. In such a case, what we are
>confronting is simply the attempt by the Javanese bourgeoisie to
>perform the same tasks that were performed in Western Europe three or
>four centuries ago. Not to speak of the military erradication of
>Languedoc by the Languedoil, by the way. This movement implies to
>curtail the ability of central, imperialist bourgeoisies, to extract
>surplus value and, thus, is -funnily enough- anti-imperialist!
I don't see the point discussing in an assumption in which nobody believes
and even less how it is an argument aginst the "plague in both houses" idea.
Does the behaviour of the european bourgoisies centuries ago or the crusade
against the Cathars (?) somehow excuse the one of the Indonesian state?
Even if this "movement" was anti-western imperialism, does it mean it couldn't
be Indonesian imperialism as well? Or do you argue that there is only one
imperialism? I understand that with your definition Indonesia can't be
imperialist, so replace that name with a plague name of your own choice.
>...
>This is the full story.
I think I already answered to this argument (my paragraph on colonial
leftovers).
>Funnily enough, so to say, and no matter the
>ideological preferences of the Indonesian government or the East
>Timorese government, the only option in Timor is either unification
>with Indonesia as a step towards the reconstitution of a united Malay
>Federation spanning from Kuala Lumpur to the Pacific, or the joyful
>acceptance of a mockingly "independent" regime in Dili, unable to
>resist without imperialist support.
I agree, except for the "as a step...". It can obviously be united with Indonesia
as a step to nowhere or to something else.
>Indonesia, no matter what kind of regime rules
>there, is the rightful "owner" of East Timor, and East Timorese
>resistence to this unification is, IMHO, just a way to subject the
>East Timorese to imperialists and to weaken Indonesia.
"owner"??? What do you mean? Whatever the East Timorese want to do with
their land except destroy it, I respect them. Whoever thinks they know better
than them or who wants them to sacrifice themselves for an unspecified higher
interest, I despise him.
>The slaveowners were both for keeping slavery working
>and the nation divided. England -whose mills depended on American
>cotton, that is on slavery, to work- was for "self determination" of
>the South. But England in the 1860s seemed to be more revolutionary
>than the USA today, because common English citizens (even though they
>were mill workers) knew that it was their duty and it was in their
>general interest to support the North, against the South, that is the
>unificators against the secessionists.
Please someone who has a serious knowledge of american history correct
me, but isn't this slavery thing more of a propaganda item vs. a real cause of
that war? Anyway, it's curious that someone who opposes humanitarian
intervention on the Kosovo issue thinks that there are good reasons to invade
people's place, destroy economies and murder civilians. I'm not denying that
the result of that Kosovo affair was not a peaceful and multiethnic Kosovo but
the result of that war was not a slave-less and non-racist country. But maybe
Marx supported the North? Then I guess I can only follow the rest of the cult...
Tony:
>Nowadays, imperialists have already landed with their banking and
>financial institutions, hooked the local elites into it, and continually
>draw off uncompensated labor from the natives.
They draw off uncompensated labor from every worker and redistribute it to
every rentier irrespective of nationality. But you're right to say that the local
elites are collaborators.
>One of the problems with using the dictionary, is that it allows the
>ruling class to confuse the issue. They want you to have an image
>of imperialsm as being.... a bully on the playground beating up a weak
>kid to take his lunch money.
My experience is rather that they want me to have an image of imperialism as
something past and as some kind of useless (except for the many cultural
advantages of the West that were passed to the inferior cultures in the
process) squandering of ressources generating suffereing and deaths as its
by.products, rather. Where did you see this bully/lunch money thing? And
what's the connection with the dictionary???
>Now, do you see why it is false to include Indonesia and Russia as being
>imperialist countries? Money flows out from labor in those two
>countries, into imperial coffers located in the real imperialist
>countries, where the world financial institutes are located.
Soon we will see the same thing happen to the USA as it has happend to that
country in the past. Will it cease to be imperialist then?
But I understand that with your definition of imperialism, the ET issue has
nothing to do with Indonesian imperialism. But then what has it to do with
Western imperialism according to you since both the West and Indonesia
promote exploitation?
>Some have tried to pose that Indonesia is an artificial construct linked
>to Javanese imperialism. The Javanese do dominate governmental
>strctures, but that is not the same as modern day neo-imperialist
>extraction of labor value.
I guess you have a detailed knowledge of the Indonesian financial institutions
and of the way that the Indonesian state spends its money.
Mac:
>Can we stick to the Leninist and/or Nkrumah definition of such? they are
>based in reality and draw the distinction between England and Argentina in
>the Malvinas, for example.
Nkrumah? Who's that?
As to Lenin, Charles told me on this list that imperialism was about exporting
the commodity form or capitalism itself or something of the sort. Nothing to do
with the Malvinas, right?
>big vs small means
>Iraq vs Israel: Iraq is the imperialist? Come on Julien. This is silly.
Indeed. But did I ever say that the bigger country is the imperialist one? No.
The country which attacks another is the imperialist one. BTW, the comparison
between a nuclear power and East Timor is very appropriate, Mac.
>I venture that if Aceh breaks
>off, it will certasinly not end there. We will end up with probably 6-10
>Indonesias in the long run, should the Imperialists get their way.
That way is also the one of the pacifists, the oppressed minorities, etc. And
how do you know that the imperialists want a breakup of Indonesia? Capital
doesn't like mess.
Rob:
>If we're stuck with the nation-state as our unit of analysis, Kosovo was
>part of Yugoslavia, and thus any interference from outside constitutes an
>imperialist act if Belgrade does not approve of it. East Timor was not part
>of the 17000 islands that is (or has been) Indonesia, and it was taken
>forcibly against the will of the majority of its inhabitants
>...
>If you don't, Belgrade was being imperialist because most
>of Kosovo no longer wanted to be part of Yugoslavia.
And the end of that kind of imperialism would soon mean more countries on
earth than stars in the sky. Or you could still define imperialism in another way,
close to one of the dictionary's definition: The extension of authority upon an
unwilling people by a state. Then it would apply to both situations since
Belgrade changed its policy towards Kosovo towards less autonomy. The
secession of most Republics also meant that the political balance which
should have protected minorities was completely changed.
>A third consideration is that both East Timor and Kosovo could aspire to
>nought better than the status of protectorate. Neither will ever have the
>political economic clout, nor the military presence, to be sovereign in any
>substantial sense, and must rely on the 'good will' (perceived self
>interest) of greater powers.
Or on other small countries also interested in defending their independence.
This is of course a problem in both cases since they aren't many such
countries around ET and since Kosovo is not a country... at least for now.
>Talk of self-determination is pretty meaningless unless we talk about the
>systemic limits which apply in the specific circumstance.
Of course, you're right. But talk about genocide and colonization is not
meaningless. This of course doesn't apply to Kosovo (you never know what
some people on this list will imagine...).
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
