********************  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.

On 2018/02/02 05:14 PM, Fred Murphy via Marxism wrote:
... For example, the lead article by Salar Mohandesi at

“Lim­it­ing impe­ri­al­ism only to the “West,” or even just the Unit­ed
States, tends to obscure the impe­ri­al­ism of those states often
com­bat­ting that impe­ri­al­ism. Of course, there are enor­mous
dif­fer­ences between, for exam­ple, U.S. and Russ­ian impe­ri­al­ism,
which become espe­cial­ly impor­tant when con­sid­er­ing the strug­gles on
the ground today, but the fact remains that for those who call them­selves
social­ists, the ulti­mate objec­tive must remain the abo­li­tion of both,
not the defense of one against the oth­er.

Hear hear.

Ah, but there arise the dilemma of whether a country fighting on a specific geographic terrain (Russia in Syria) for specific territorial and geopolitical reasons is genuinely anti- or perhaps inter-imperialist... or whether this conjunctural battle occurs within - not against - the broader imperial project of accumulation through global corporate power relations. The latter I consider 'imperialism' proper, no matter the conjunctures in specific sites.

Which means we may want to take up the question of whether the Russian - and broader BRICS agenda (which will be on display when their head-of-states-summit comes here to Johannesburg in late July) for that matter - is better described not as anti- or inter- ... but as sub-imperialist.

More soon as this debate percolates, here and there.


Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 

Reply via email to