Jim writes:
Are Russia, India, Japan, Vietnam, or Cambodia "imperialist"
countries? they'd have to be firmly located in the dominant fraction.
I don't think any of these except Japan fits...
====================================
You neglected to mention China, whose expanding trade ties in Asia, Africa,
the Mideast, and Latin America are starting to be labelled as "imperialist",
even by some on the left. I don't see any evidence of that, although I see
plenty of evidence that it is determinedly moving towards capitalism, if it
hasn't gotten there already. Russia accepts that it has restored capitalism,
but I wouldn't describe its relations with any other country as imperialist
either. I was addressing Matthjis' suggestion that capitalism and
imperialism always go together. On Lou Proyect's list, a contributor named
Paula has identified virtually every country on the planet as imperialist
which is what happens when these concepts become too elastic. I think to
even describe Japan as "imperialist" or as part of the "dominant fraction"
is misleading in that it places it on the same plane as the US, which is to
my mind the only surviving imperialist power. Japan was once in an
antagonistic relationship with the US, vying for control of the Pacific
region. Today, to use Anthony's label, it is at best a "sub-imperialism", a
lieutenant of America which can't pursue a foreign policy independent of it.
The same is true of Europe. I'm not saying this can't change. You're already
seeing signs of increasing disrespect towards the "don" as his economic and
military weaknesses are exposed. But dey ain't ready to take on the boss
yet.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
