******************** 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. *****************************************************************
Not sure why John Reimann's addition to this thread is a separate thread (since the subject is the same). I agree with Patrick Bond that sub-imperialism is an extremely useful concept, though I think that Callinicos used it far too broadly (Vietnam? really?), but perhaps Patrick's own criteria are somewhat restrictive. I basically agree with John Reimann that" Whatever term one wishes to use, all capitalist states are driven by the same forces that drive the most powerful. How could it be otherwise? And that means that where they can, they will economically, politically and militarily dominate another state." However, John seems to be saying that this makes them all "imperialist", without a separate sub-imperialist category. Seems to me that it is useful to distinguish between capitalist countries whose reach is global and those much less powerful states whose reach is regional. That the first group also, by and large, correspond to other aspects we have traditionally thought of as evidence of imperialism - eg being highly advanced capitalist economies that dominate the world market in other, less direct ways (trade etc) - is also a relevant distinction. This allows us to understand that the US and China, for example, may be engaged in economic rivalry, but that the quasi-conflict between the US and Iran is unlikely to be caused by "competition"; whereas the Saudi-Iranian rivalry is. However, the mistake is to draw sweeping, rigid, undialectical conclusions from all this, of the kind that since x country is sub-imperialist, if there is a military clash with country y, which is imperialist, we must always "support", whatever that means, country x, regardless of the actual context. So, for example, when the Australian DSP supported Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999, I guess we were "lucky" that Indonesia decided to not shoot back - because based on this kind of dogma, we would have had to "support" a sub-imperialist (or ... "oppressed" ...) Indonesia against imperialist Australia. Even though the point of Indonesia doing that would have been to complete its massacre of the east Timorese. Which would have been nuts. In the case of Syria, the theory of sub-imperialism in no way goes against supporting (however critically) Turkey's glorious attack on Assad's genocide equipment last week. After all, sub-imperialist Turkey was confronting the vassal of Russian imperialism, which is not involved at arms length, but a direct, large-scale belligerent. So that actually fits the dogma well (unless one has decided that Russia is not imperialist). BUT - and if I shock, perhaps that's partly the aim - I think it would have been correct to support Turkey doing what it just did in 2002, 2003, 2004, early 2005 - ie, before the Russian intervention. I said so on FB years ago, received a lot of shock, and made sure I never withdrew or capitulated to the crowd. So glad it finally happened (though of course, as expected from Turkey, it was not sustained and was only a step towards a deal). On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 4:28 PM Chris Slee via Marxism < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ******************** 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. > ***************************************************************** > > I don't agree that "...Erdogan is defending the remnants of the Syrian > democratic revolution". > > Within Idlib province, the democratic revolution had largely been > destroyed by reactionary groups, some of which are backed by Turkey, even > before Assad's recent offensive. > > For example, one of the centres of the revolution was the town of Saraqib. > But democratic forces there came under attack from a series of reactionary > groups, and eventually had to leave the town. A February 10 article on the > Guardian website quotes a democratic activist, Odai al-Hussein, who said: > > "We wanted a free Syria for all Syrians but they [the reactionary groups] > wanted an Islamic state. We continued against all the odds: we challenged > the [Assad] regime, Ahrar al-Sham, Islamic State and al-Nusra. In the end > the jihadists took over, but we left our city with dignity knowing how much > we endured to keep Saraqib free". > > I am sure there are still people struggling for democracy in Idlib, but I > don't think Turkey will help them. It will repress them in the areas it > controls. > > The democratic revolution survives in north-eastern Syria, under very > difficult circumstances. > But Turkey, through its invasion of Afrin and now its invasion of > northeastern Syria, is trying to suppress it. > > The term "sub-imperialist" seems applicable to Turkey, which "plays an > imperialist-like role regionally". It intervenes militarily in Syria and > Iraq, has bases in Qatar and Somalia, and has sent a contingent of Syrian > mercenaries to Libya. > > Chris Slee > > ________________________________ > From: Marxism <marxism-boun...@lists.csbs.utah.edu> on behalf of Walter > Daum via Marxism <marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> > Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2020 10:40 AM > To: Chris Slee <chris_w_s...@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Marxism] Erdogan’s imperial play comes undone > > ******************** 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. > ***************************************************************** > > Sub-imperialism is a valid and important concept. Callinicos is right that > it was introduced by Marini with regard to Brazil, and it has been extended > by Patrick Bond and others to South Africa. In the Middle East it might > well apply to Iran and Turkey. As I read him, Marini regards a state as > sub-imperialist if it is not imperialist on the world scale (it remains > exploited by the imperialist powers) but plays an imperialist-like role > regionally. > Callinicos has abused the term by applying it over-widely and ignoring the > “sub” aspect. His tendency, for example, labeled Argentina sub-imperialist > in order to avoid taking sides against Britain in the Malvinas/Falklands > war in 1982. In effect the IST treated the war as an inter-imperialist > conflict. They seem to be doing the same to avoid taking the side of Turkey > against Russia, to the extent that for his own reasons and for the moment > Erdogan is defending the remnants of the Syrian democratic revolution. > The RKOB is right about Callinicos. But his misuse of the term doesn’t > mean that sub-imperialism has to be confusing. > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/chris_w_slee%40hotmail.com > > _________________________________________________________ > Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm > Set your options at: > https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/mkaradjis%40gmail.com > _________________________________________________________ Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm Set your options at: https://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
