>> Historically, only capitalist countries which have intervened  
militarily to 
establish settler colonies or to set up puppet regimes to  facilitate the  
exploitation of these territories by their own  corporations and have been  
characterized as imperialist by Marxists  and others. << 

In a message dated 1/14/2011 9:10:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
__shmage@pipeline.com_ (mailto:_shm...@pipeline.com) _  writes: 

Are you saying that China today is not capitalist? That Han  settlement  in 
Tibet is not massively sponsored by the Chinese  regime?  That the "Tibet  
Autonomous Region" does not have a  puppet government?  That Chinese  
corporations are not heavily  present in Tibet? (and were not even talking 

Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking  to  
secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating  
"imperialism" in 
this era of political domination of speculative finance as  a general  
"imperialism" defeats the mean of this tread: "the end of  the imperialist  
epoch." Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of  imperial-colonialism is 
of asking the question "end of the  imperialist epoch." 
Lenin's Hobson unraveling of "modern imperialism" of his era was  useful  
because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and  political 
features.  Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital  
capital);  hundreds of millions of slaves of a  direct colonial system and 
the fight 
amongst  direct colonizers for a  re-division of an already divided world. 
This fight for  spheres of  influence was based in the national productive 
logic of huge   multinational state structures. 
The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has  meant  
more than "imperial outreach" or a lack of rights of those  beings 
Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end  to the direct 
colonial  system; the end of neo colonialism and the  imperial colonization 
based on  financial-industrial capital. 
The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of  the  
colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule  expressed  
financial-industrial capital.  Vietnam Liberation and  unification in 1976  
is a 
world book mark on an epoch that began with  our revolution of 1776. This  
not mean no one of earth is  oppressed and exploited through world 
production relations.  Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism, 
has  been  superseded. 
America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span 
two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the  
British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct   
"anti-colonial interest" imperialist interest, and then settled the war  
the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the  Civil War 
a  world with colonial states as direct appendage of  imperialist state 
structures  preventing its free flow of finance  capital beyond Latin 
The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct  colonial  
system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the  political and  
economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political  basis for imperialist 
war in 
the past century, rather than the economic  impetus for war under 
capitalism,  (anarchy of production with war  production being a profit 
center) was 
the fight  for colonies or  spheres of influence based on colonial 
The fight  between  imperialist states was not over one huge state 
colonizing another but   over the colonies represented by these massive 
states. This 
form of  imperialism  is very much part of the question "end of the 
imperialist  epoch." 
The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct   
colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of  
capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to  recreate 
direct colonial system. For the German state direct  colonialism meant  
revitalization of economic and social life - "the  thousand year rule," or 
in lay  
person terms "French wine, Polish hams  and Slavic slave women." 
American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's  "Imperialism," 
sought to recreate the political world leading the  charge to wipe direct  
colonialism from the face the earth. American  financial imperialism sought 
defeat its enemies and identified them as  direct colonizers of the world. 
It's  slogan was "national  independence" and self determination of nations 
up to and  including  the formation of separate states.  This battering ram 
against the   direct colonial system explains why "Uncle Ho" armies entered 
Hanoi at the  close  of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled 
Then  of course came  the policy change and the Cold War. 
This era of financial-industrial capital - finance capital, from  direct  
colony to neo-colony spanned from the results of the Civil War  until the 
1980's  and the Reagan administration. Bush I declared the  "New World 
Order" to 
the  citizens of earth. This meant in my mind the  imperialism we had known 
was being  jettisoned from history. Not  imperial outreach but imperialism. 
The imperialist epoch is the epoch of the bourgeoisie rather than  Imperial 
Rome, as its politically dominant sector - based on its  connection in 
commodity  production, sought to recreate the world in  its interest. 
Hence, a 
specific form  of imperialism. Each era and  epoch has its distinct 
political-economic interest.  What is the  political interest of an 
imperial capital 
resting on a non-banking   financial architecture increasingly driven by 
capital, fiat  currency  and economic logic increasingly based on notional 
imaginary, value? 
Tibet is no colony, unless the new definition of colony means  historically 
evolved peoples lacking a political state. Tibet is an  autonomous region 
within  the multinational state of the Peoples  Republic of China. 
Self determination of nations can also mean autonomous regions within  a  
socialist or capitalist state with the degree of autonomy depending  of all 
kinds  of factors. In real life there is no possibility of Tibet  forming a 
separate  political state within a multinational state  framework. This  
does not 
make  Tibet a colony, even within a  framework of a "capitalist China." 
Dragging Tibet into a discussion of "the end of the imperialist epoch" adds 
nothing to examining our brave new world politically dominated by  
speculative  finance.

Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:

Reply via email to