******************** POSTING RULES & NOTES ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
Thanks to Patrick Bond for his comments. As the author of numerous
interesting and well-argued books and articles about the exploitation of
Africa (as well as other regions), his thoughts are certainly welcomed
in such a debate.
However, I think Patrick Bond is mistaken about the theoretical concept
of "sub-imperialism". It is certainly true that there are states with
monopolies which extract more surplus and those which extract less (to
take his example of the different figures for repatriated profits). For
those interested I would like to refer to my book on the
super-exploitation of South which contains many statistics and analysis
of this issue (The Great Robbery of the South. Continuity and Changes in
the Super-Exploitation of the Semi-Colonial World by Monopoly Capital
Consequences for the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, 2013,
http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/. As the book has been sold
out it can be downloaded for free at this website.)
However, I think it is wrong to create a new category
("/sub-imperialism/") in addition to the two central categories which
were developed by the leading Marxist theoreticians when the epoch of
imperialism unfolded ("/imperialist/" respectively "/(semi-)colonial
countries/"). To give an analogy: there are many different layers inside
the bourgeoisie – starting from the monopolist faction, the middle
bourgeoisie, the small bourgeoisie (not to be confused with the
petty-bourgeoisie!), etc.). However, all these different factions are
part of the bourgeoisie and neither represents a new class category (let
us say a "sub-bourgeoisie").
In my opinion, the problem with the introduction of the category
"sub-imperialism" becomes apparent in Bonds brief reply to my pamphlet.
He characterizes "all the BRICS" as "sub-imperialist" which for him
(referring to Marini) means that they are "/powers that act as deputy
sheriffs/". This raises the question: whose "/deputy sheriffs/" are
China and Russia? In my opinion, these two states are emerging
imperialist powers (for a list of literature which argues this case see
below). If Bond believes that they are "/deputy sheriffs/" one wonders
in which service they are. In the service of Washington, Brussels or
Tokyo? Certainly not, as the accelerating rivalry including sanctions,
military threats etc. between these two sides demonstrate.
In summary, I believe that the category of "sub-imperialism" is wrong
when checked by reality and theoretically confusing.
Here are some of my writings on China as an emerging imperialist power:
China‘s transformation into an imperialist power. A study of the
economic, political and military aspects of China as a Great Power,
The China Question and the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, December 2014,
China’s Emergence as an Imperialist Power, in: “New Politics” (Vol:XV-1,
Whole #: 57),
And here are some of my writings on Russia as an emerging imperialist power:
Russia as a Great Imperialist Power. The formation of Russian Monopoly
Capital and its Empire – A Reply to our Critics,
Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism and the Rise of Russia as a Great Power.
On the Understanding and Misunderstanding of Today’s Inter-Imperialist
Rivalry in the Light of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism, August 2014,
Is Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism Incompatible with the Concept of
Russia and China as Great Imperialist Powers. A Summary of the RCIT’s
Analysis, 28 March 2014, in: /Revolutionary Communism/ No. 22,
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT,www.thecommunists.net)
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: