I find it hard to believe that these (former semi.peripheral economies, with a bunch of millionnaires rivaling the core economies today) are imperialists. Seeking raw materials is not an indicator of imperialism or for that some big acquisitions. Lest we forget imperialism of the economic sort goes hand in hand with state political power. I cannot see that with China and India. Neither Tibet nor Kashmir are cases of imperialist hegemony (they are huge costs to the state). I have to admit though in the 1970s the Maoists (Naxalites) in India did use the term sub-imperialism to classify the fSU and India.
Anthony On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthjis alluded to China, Russia, India, and Japan in arguing that > anti-imperialist nations can become imperialist, which in theory is > incontestible. Jim said that made sense to him and added Vietnam and > Cambodia to the mix. > > So, to be clear, which if any of these countries would either of both of > you today describe as "imperialist"? What defines them as such in > contradistinction to the others, and when did they cross that threshold? > > I'm asking because, as with "fascism", there's a danger in using a term so > loosely that it creates a muddle which robs the concept of any analytical > power that it once had. > > Marv G > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Devine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 9:19 AM > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Labor aristocracy > > > > this makes sense to me. Nationalism of any sort has two faces. In the >> case of anti-imperialist nationalism, one face is the fight for >> national self-determination, while the other involves the fight for >> superiority vis-a-vis other nations. Vietnam ran the US off their >> territory but immediately fought with Cambodia and China. Likely those >> Vietnamese fights were justified, but the other sides (China, >> Cambodia) also represented anti-imperialist nationalisms. >> >> Perhaps it's like the fight of petty-bourgeois interests. They >> sometimes look "progressive" vis-a-vis the big bourgeoisie but they >> usually want to join the latter not abolish it. And they're not in >> favor of empowering the working class. >> >> Matthijs Krul wrote: >> >>> I don't see how the theory of imperialism necessarily presupposes that >>> the >>> imperialists are always the same people though. Not only are there and >>> would >>> there be anti-imperialist, particularly anti-colonial movements which >>> resist >>> the logic of imperialism, but there will also be struggle between the >>> various imperialist bourgeoisies over the hegemony over the system, and >>> the >>> bourgeoisies of the subjugated nations will at some point quickly tire of >>> their 'gatekeeper' position and want to stake out a claim of their own. >>> This >>> is how I interpret the developments since the 1960s, relying among other >>> works on Vijay Prashad's book on the Third World movement. The >>> anti-colonial >>> independence movements were clearly directly anti-imperialist, both on >>> the >>> part of the African and Asian workers involved as on their small local >>> bourgeoisie; but if the latter manage to defeat the former, as often >>> happened, there is every reason to expect the more powerful of those (or >>> the >>> ones in nations with more potential power) to start out an imperialism of >>> their own. One can see this perhaps with the Soviet Union (although >>> that's >>> contested), but certainly with Chinese activity in Africa today, with the >>> very traditional sort of territorial fights between Pakistan and India >>> and >>> between India and China, one sees this most famously with the modern >>> history >>> of Japan, and so forth. That formerly subjugated nations now become >>> powerful >>> does not to me indicate that imperialism is at an end, just that the >>> imperialists are less white, to put it bluntly. >>> >>> As for your second point, that may well be true, especially once it >>> becomes >>> more clear that the color and language of the oppressor matters >>> practically >>> very little, and all the more now the Cold War is over. I sure hope that >>> this will lead to a reinvigoration of class struggle. >>> >>> Matthijs Krul >>> _______________________________________________ >>> pen-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own >> way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l >> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1517 - Release Date: 6/24/2008 > 8:41 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Anthony P. D'Costa Professor of Indian Studies Asia Research Centre Copenhagen Business School Porcelaenshaven 24, 3 DK-2000 Frederiksberg Denmark Email:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: +45 3815 2572 Fax: +45 3815 2500 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
