Chris interestling writes.
> On the main theoretical difference between Dave and Bob, I am alarmed to
> find myself agreeing with both of them. Rather than argue however between
> Russia as a developing imperialist state or as a colony, I would like to
> suggest a formula I heard at a seminar on the world economy in London 8
> days ago. It was from someone from a Trotskyist background. It was that
> there are such things as sub-imperialisms. The definition would be where
> the entity keeps some share of surplus value for itself.

Interesting take. How would you characterized  countries like India,Pakistan. With 
Russia we are dealing with a country in transition from a degenerated workers state to 
what? Is the question. A quite new and extremely difficult question. 

> I think despite our many other differences all of us can see that the West
> has been particularly soft on Yeltsin for entirely discreditable reasons.
> It is essentially allowing him to play the idea of becoming a
> sub-imperialism. They calculate that he will have to compromise and accept
> a subordinate position within a global capitalism dominated by the US. 

I doubt in the long run that imperialism is united or agree on Russia. The destruction 
of the SU has unfortunately put us back in pre 1914 positions albut with nuclear 
> BTW I note contributors denouncing the possibility of a western
> "humanitarian intervention" into Chechnya. What you are not distinguishing
> is between a military attack and financial pressure, of the sort that got
> the Indonesian troops to withdraw from East Timor. It is quite clear that
> the west could have imposed the latter, and for *imperialist* reasons
> decided not to. They would rather do business with a corrupt Yeltsin/Putin
> regime that oppresses subject nationalities, than a lefter Primakov type
> regime.

 "humanitarian" intervention has nothing to do with what is going on. This is a 
struggle for positions before the next buig round.
> Perhaps Dave or Bob will not buy it, but what about "sub-imperialism" as a
> relevant half-way concept for what Russia under Yeltsin is trying to achieve?

Well to put a label on it I like the capitalist Russia with imperialist intentions. 
Perhaps capitalism in the accumilating stage which in a sense is as impossible as the 
colonial bourgeoisie being able to carry out the democratic aspects of a bourgeois 
revolution in the imperialist stage of development. I say that sub-imperialism, as 
well as a democratic capialist regime in Russia is impossible! 

You know this reminds me of the theory of peremanent revolution albut in a situation 
which in history is entirely new to us. I mean this is the first time we are 
confronted with capitalist counter revolutions in the degenerated and deformed workers 


     --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---

Reply via email to