Please do not consider me in anyway with Hardt and Negri who's book I have
not read and from my browsing of it find little reason to ever do so. I
thought all I was stating was classic Historical Materialism as developed
by Lenin (on which we may well disagree without bringing in extraneous
associations).
At 22:59 25/09/01 +0100, you wrote:
>At 26/09/01 00:19 +0800, Greg wrote:
>
>>Was it not Lenin in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism who noted
>>the emergence of some then "unstable" international cartels as precursors
>>of the next stage? I trust no one has missed the fact that this form of
>>combine is now both stable and plentifull.
>
>
>I cannot find the word "unstable" linked to cartel on searching for
>"unstable" through each of the chapters in the internet archive.
You are quite correct "unstable" does not exist in this context as a word,
however the chapter 5 "DIVISION OF THE WORLD AMONG CAPITALIST ASSOCIATIONS"
explores the notion as a whole and documents the collapse of a number of
such international cartels, but even this is an aside.
The instability lurks at the heart of the relationship between these
monopolies and national financial capital which is something of a theme
running through this work of Lenin. The critical passage is the last where
Lenin in reference to the real conditions of his day remarks:
'The epoch of the latest stage of capitalism shows us that certain
relations between capitalist associations grow up, based on the economic
division of the world; while parallel to and in connection with it, certain
relations grow up between political alliances, between states, on the basis
of the territorial division of the world, of the struggle for colonies, of
the "struggle for spheres of influence".'
The dependence of such international cartels on the relationship between
states in an era of Imperialist competition is the telling point. In this
such cartels despite their competition as capital are also subject to the
competition between states of which Lenin in this chapter gives ample
evidence. I would not know which other way to describe this oddity,
international associations of capitalists relying on the varied strengths
(in all their dimensions) of various national finance capital expressed in
another sphere as competing Imperial powers - surely unstable is a fair
enough assessment.
The context of the chapter is Lenin's criticism of Kautsky's notion of
emergent peaceful relations indicated by such cartels (an impossible notion
in the context of Imperialist competition) and as indicators or emergent
super-Imperialism (Lenin criticises the first but makes no mention of the
second). Moreover, Lenin returns to the question of class struggle to show
that such fixations are mere sophistry.
Peace is no more a question now then it was in Lenin's day, but we would be
foolish to believe that war itself in such changed circumstances can remain
what it was in the imperialist epoch. The undoubted tendency is that war
becomes in our era much more akin to ongoing civil war, that is it cannot
be characterised by war between contending Imperial powers (though states
will no doubt be involved), the ganging up of all major powers must be
taken for granted in this context (despite the historical frictions this
may cause).
This is what Marxists are missing out on, an overall conceptualisation of
the present period, instead we re-circulate the notions belonging to a
previous era, which has some benefits but it is, in the end, no substitute.
The question is not one of quote mongering but the actual notion that Lenin
is developing. To this we must go to his last chapter (10) "THE PLACE OF
IMPERIALISM IN HISTORY". In this last chapter Lenin does posterity the
greatest service by temporalising the concept of Imperialism by the final
product of Imperialist struggles. Clearly Lenin is intimating that this
should be Proletarian Socialism but he is careful to state this obliquely
and in fact paints a picture of Bourgeois Socialism.
Hindsight is a wonderful tool, something not often said but in the context
of today when hindsight is forced to fit old notions, it is certainly true.
We stand at the end of the process that Lenin was investigating over eighty
years ago - a process resulting from ongoing socialisation of production,
of expropriators expropriating themselves. Even the concept of cartel seems
dated in the context of international capital and of a bourgeoisie broken
loose from the confines of national finance capital, for them Imperialist
struggle between states is an anachronism, for them class war takes on a
deadly meaning in an age of international civil war.
On A Few Other Matters
>They [Hardt and Negri] argue that while Lenin adopted the analytical
>propositions of Hilferding and Kautsky he strongly rejected their
>political conclusions.
I will not quibble, in this, at least, Hardt and Negri would seem to be
right (perhaps I do need to read their meandering book). In fact if Lenin
is not read in this way we end up with ahistorical analysis where the
movement and development of capital is forever locked in the Imperialist
stage of development (this is virtually the position of the entire
communist movement - or what is left of it).
Chris, perhaps I am sounding far more bumptious than I intend, but please
consider this - Lenin gives no reason for the process to stop except the
intervention of Proletarian revolution (I believe this is a fair reading),
we have interpreted this to mean that the next step can only be Proletarian
Socialism (which clearly has not come about on a world scale). However I
believe this to be an unjustified interpretation and on reflection a rather
ridiculous one.
Politically Lenin was grinding the noses of opportunism in the realities of
class struggle, he was not so much interested in the speculative future of
capitalism in itself but rather what should be done politically based on
the character of capital as it had emerged. In this Lenin used a sleight of
hand in his writing, one which appears to have worked only too well.
He had to deal with the tendencies of capitalist development beyond the
then present period because this was the ground of Kautsky and others. In
no single instance does he substantially dispute their logic other then in
regard to the class question (from which political actions must derive) but
rather than recast their words and thus politically confuse the reader,
Lenin simply quotes them and leaves it at this as he picks up the thread of
class struggle and hammers it home.
In effect, the speculations (in general) are associated with criticism but
not in themselves criticised, I believe for the very good reason that Lenin
did not in fact dispute their overall logic. Politically there was no point
in restating such speculations, in fact, politically there was every reason
why this would substantially detract from Lenin's main points.
If Hardt and Negri have become aware of this then they are only seeing what
has been hidden in plain sight. The opposite, view (the traditional view)
has to contend with the fact that in preserving the concept of Imperialism
at all costs and failing to embrace the full nature of super-imperialism we
in effect turn our backs on historical movement within capital. This is
very serious and justified by nothing which Lenin says, I do not think
anybody has specified any theoretical reason why Imperialism cannot have
moved to a stage beyond itself, yet we seem to have accepted this as a fact
and I believe this is nothing other than a festishizing of past struggles.
>This post is in some haste, but it is in the nature of the internet that
>these issues cycle and recycle, hopefully at a higher level. For my own
>part I take the mildest form of umbrage in turn at Greg's remarks, in
>that, I think from almost the very first response to Sept 11th, I have
>tried to give evidence of the importance of the contradictions *between*
>imperialisms in seeing where this is all leading under the surface of the
>displays of monumental unity.
Chris I do apologise on the basis I am very new to the list and am ignorant
of your previous arguments. You are quite right to be mildly insulted by a
recent interloper jumping in as I have, I make no excuses and have much
back reading to do, but at some point one must jump in boots and all and
suffer the consequences.
I am not in a position to argue for or against Hardt and Negri, or for that
matter pass worthwhile comment on the various frictions and contradictions
that have stemmed from September the 11th on which no-doubt a good deal of
sense has been stated in this list. I do not doubt for a second the effects
of the past history of Imperialism shaping the contradictions of the
present, I only question the dominant logic in operation.
In history, the emergent dominance of a new logic does not immediately or
necessary dispell the persistent logic of previous forms. History gives a
wide berth for older contradictions to come forward and there is plenty of
evidence for this happening at the moment, and indeed influence events to a
great degree (which is vitally important when we are caught up in the
middle of them). However, while sets of concepts derived from the past
remain useful (and in the absence of any others vital to at least keep
abreast of developments) this does not make them in-themselves sufficient
(which is the question I am trying to address - necessarily abstract as it is).
I would pass one remark however, we should not mix up abstract theory with
analysis (a statement that must seem oddly anti-praxical), unfolding events
have historical logic which draws on many sources, so much is happening so
fast that any attempt of analysing trends and features must be welcome,
however above this we do need to theoretically sort ourselves out and it
would be wrong to force the issue by too directly applying abstractions to
the complexities of the concrete (I am certainly in no position to do so).
Trying to patch together a concept of "Super-Imperialism" and or "Bourgeois
Socialism" or anything that is substantially new, on the run with an
analysis of current events would only confuse matters further and should be
avoided by any serious contributor.
I raised this matter not as a cheap attack on phrases and modes of analysis
used in order to sort-out recent events. In this existing knowledge and
established theoretical concepts must be employed in the field, so to
speak, in an effort that aspects otherwise hidden are revealed in order to
gain a better understanding of the very complexity of what is happening -
in otherwords we do the best we can with what we know without trying to
impose concepts which are not properly developed. However, this also leaves
room for developing new concepts which will or might, in the end, better
aid our collective analysis (provided they are indeed well founded). It is
a case of horses for courses.
Within the level of relatively abstract theory "Super-Imperialism",
"Bourgeois Socialism", whatever, may flounder theoretically but we need to
explore these dimensions for until we truly grasp the character of our age
we will not be able to politically articulate proletarian interests within
it. One thing I believe is certain, the older concepts which have been
patched and extended are now severely frayed and have insufficient. Lenin
succeeded in first knowing his epoch and then articulating a political
platform, but to do so he had to break with his own past as well as with
the "heirs" of Marx and Engels. I believe we have to do something similar
in order to develop, rather than depart from, Historical Materialism.
Chris while this is no-where a full response to your posting I hope at
least it frees me of being too closely associated with a book I have not
yet read and posits my views within their correct level of abstraction. I
am concerned with the long term political and theoretical future I make no
pretense in being better informed or more acute analytically then many I
have read on this list, indeed I feed parasitically on insights provided -
I just cannot escape the dire need to move Historical Materialism on a step
or two and break from the political bind we all now occupy.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
