====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On 6/5/2010 7:00 PM, Angelus Novus wrote: > A concrete analysis of the relation between states is by itself > neither a proof nor a refutation of the concept of 'imperialism', > unless you're just using 'imperialism' in the everyday populist > sense of 'big states beating up on little ones'. I must thank Angelus for showing how quickly defense of white privilege (or if you prefer, imperialist privilege) leads to complete idiocy. Certainly WHATEVER imperialism might be, it is NOT "big states beating up on little ones." As in "little" China, India, etc., suffering at the hands of "big" England. And this phrase was no accident. AN *repeats* it almost word for word: > The second sense is just a fancy way of expressing the fact that > large and powerful nation states are in a position to exercise force > and influence over smaller ones. Which is of course true, but also > completely banal, and certainly does not constitute a 'theory of > imperialism'. So where does this big state/little state "theory" of imperialism come from? In my view, from he assumption that relationship between the imperialist nations and those of the third world are "natural." Wealth, influence, power, and even veto rights in the UN Security Council flows to the imperialist nations just like water flowing downstream. You know, "Gravity: it's the law." Except that, as comrade Einstein discovered, gravity is NOT "the law" but a warping of space-time. And if wealth just seems to flow all by itself from India to England, it's not because of some "law" of nature or society about big and little states, but because a whole series of circumstances ALLOWED the Brits to warp the socio-economic space so that this happens. And this, BTW, is why the struggle against imperialism is a struggle against a *system* and not just against imperialist interests or nations. There's one more thing that needs to be said. Notice that our angel --that's what Angelus means, BTW-- denigrates the "big state/little state" theory of imperialism. He says it is true, but "banal," in fact "populist." The sum and substance of this is that everyone should IGNORE the REALITY of imperialism that is before their eyes, everything from the millions of children who die each year in the third world from diarrhea and other preventable/curable diseases to the rape of pachamama to the imperialist wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and they're already sending out preview trailers for the one against Iran). FAILURE to ignore the *reality* of imperialism is dismissed as "populist." By some strange coincidence, it's a word I encounter several times a week as I read statements and commentaries on Latin America from defenders of neo-liberalism. That Lula in adopting measures against race discrimination and that increased the standard of living of the urban poor was just being a "populist." That Evo Morales is guilty of the most vulgar sort of populism by leading the transformation of Bolivia into a plurinational state. After all, it's been decades since we gave the Indians the vote. That the efforts of the Kirchners to break Argentina's subservience to the IMF is cheap populism. That Correa's stance of defending Ecuadorean sovereignty against the aggressions of imperialist sock-puppet Uribe is populist pandering. That the condemnation of Arizona's SB-1070 by everyone in Latin America from OAS General Secretary Insulza to Fidel is populist grandstanding, playing to the bleachers. Not to go into what they say about Latin America's Populist-in-Chief, President Hugo Chavez. So when someone describes what I believe in or what I'm saying as "populist," my gut reaction is that I'm on the right track. Joaquin ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
