Tom, this is the beginning of your comment about how intangible you find
the term 'imperialism' to be.
_______________________________
<Writes Tony:
I did argue that we should not give it centrality in the process of
imperialism (Nestor's definition) ...
Once again, I'm not just trying to be rude. � But your idea of
imperialism needs quite a lot of expansion and redefinition.>
_________________________________
For clarity, I did not say that first part attributed to me. Julien
did. The second part, was part of my reply to Julien.
I'm not going to give it another try in my own words. You and
Julien (and others also maybe) are stating that the marxist definition
of 'imperialism' changes depending on the marxist. So I will go
straight to Jay Moore. He wrote an opinion piece to welcome in the
New Millenium. And in it, he gave a pretty standard marxist
appraisal of world imperialism today.
Since he is responsible for arguably the best and biggest non-sectarian
Left site on the Web, I believe that his definition can be pretty much
relied on to be fairly definitive, to the greatest extent. So....
from 'Jays Left and "Progressive" Internet Resource' site comes the
following analysis of current day imperialism ....from a marxist
perspective.
________________________________
Jay Moore
<Recently, some Left commentators have spotted and called attention to
what they think may be a reversion to the more naked direct form of
colonization under the guise of "humanitarian intervention" by the U.S.
and NATO countries on behalf of the so-called "international community".
They have termed the military interventions and occupations of Bosnia,
of Kosovo and possibly of East Timor examples of this new
"recolonization".
�����
While this is a phenomenon worth watching and opposing, colonialism
operates mainly today, as it has since the decolonization of the 1950s
and 1960s, through less direct and more insidious means - through
control over the terms of investment and trade and from the entanglement
of debt in an increasingly globalized economic environment. The World
Bank, the IMF and the WTO are now among its principle instrumentalities,
staffed with bureaucrats reaching their decisions in accordance with
supposedly objective economic laws. This characteristic, along with the
greater distance and anonymity involved, makes organizing against
"neo-colonialism" that much harder than it was when a more in-your-face
colonial administration backed up by foreign or mercenary troops
governed within the countries themselves and enforced the "mother
country's" exploitative interests against the largely peasant
populations with their traditional sense of a moral economic order. At
the same time, the old-style colonialists, with their haughty and racist
attitudes, often demeaned and thwarted the aspirations of local elites
which pushed them to the Left.
Anti-colonial struggles have forced colonialism to change its
appearance. Lurking more in the background today, international
financial bodies, banks and corporations controlled by an elite that is
mainly from the developed capitalist world and is mainly under U.S.
hegemony call the important shots affecting the lives of all the rest of
us. Meanwhile, on the level of individual states, governance appears to
be in the hands of various local elites.
Such subalterns possess similar class outlooks, often having been
schooled ideologically, like the recent presidents of Mexico, at the
same international ruling class facilities, and they receive crumbs,
sometimes quite substantial, from the same table. Former Marxist leaders
of the national liberation movements, having made it themselves into
positions of power like the president of South Africa, espouse
neo-liberalism. China and Vietnam voluntarily open their doors to
foreign-owned sweatshops. Direct subversion and military intervention
from the outside is reserved for those cases when local flunkies or
compradors begin to show some modicum of independence, like Norriega in
Panama and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, or when the masses get over-restless
and the local elites can no longer control the situation fully -- which
is what seems to be in the offing with Colombia.
Thus, the situation at century's end is different in form but similar in
essence to the situation at the century's beginning. Like 1900, too --
and as we have just seen most powerfully last month displayed in the
streets of Seattle -- radical social movements are gathering to
challenge today's colonialism and are beginning to call this menace by
its proper name, "capitalism". While populist and nationalist movements
in the Third World may not have totally exhausted their liberatory
potential, today's struggles are much more directly part and parcel of a
war of class against class on an international level.>
--END--
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
