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
weapons.
>
> 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
states.
Bob
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
