me:
>> 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...
Marvin Gandall:
> 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 China as firmly ensconced in the dominant part of the
imperialist system yet. Thus, if we define "imperialist" countries in
terms of international social relations (as I did), it's not an
imperialist country. It may be knocking on the door, but I would guess
that China -- including its vaunted middle class -- is going to be hit
hard by the recession. Add in environmental degradation (to use a mild
term) and severe class conflict, China's a lot like the proverbial
powder-keg.
BTW, there's a great possibility that "countries" are becoming
obsolete. But the "virtuous circle" of accumulating power will likely
persist, centered on the nascent world capitalist class. There will
likely be some China-based capitalists in that class, perhaps
diversifying their holdings to get out of the powder-keg.
> ... I was addressing Matthjis' suggestion that capitalism and
> imperialism always go together.
I don't think the two go together. The old USSR was imperialist,
though its imperialism (like that of ancient Rome) was of a different
style. The USSR treated E. Europe primarily as military pawns, as a
military/cultural/political buffer zone. It wasn't a matter of
(narrowly-defined) economic exploitation.
Also, I don't see the dominated countries in the imperialist system as
being "imperialist."
> 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.
There is always the question of "where to draw the line," to
concretize abstract categories. Where does one draw the line between
the dominant and dominated sections of the imperialist world-system?
and don't forget that there are intermediate countries ("petty
bourgeois" countries?) that neither benefit from the accumulation of
power nor suffer from exploitation by the dominant powers.
Yes, the US is the _hegemonic_ power (though its losing its status a
bit). Do we include the rest of the G-7? I'd say so, but it's too
academic a discussion. I'd see the G-7 as a lot like the big partners
in a law firm: rivals but working together.
> 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.
But Japan still has a lot of manufacturing and financial power and
helps make major world decisions, in league with the US. Call it
"sub-imperialism" or call it "a junior partner," I don't really care.
Words are pretty arbitrary in their meaning.
However, the old Marxian convention is that "sub-imperialist" powers
are a bit like Iran under the Shah or Israel now: these two powers
acted as assistant military "beat cops" in the Middle East under the
general supervision of the US. (The US elite wanted Pakistan to play
that role, but no success there.)
Japan isn't a sub-imperialist power of that sort, since its military
capabilities are limited. But they are junior partner, in the sense of
being a major beneficiary of the imperialist world-system,
accumulating mostly financial power.
> 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.
yes, there is controversy within board of partners of the "law firm"
But it doesn't threaten to cause the same kind of results that
inter-imperialist rivalry did before 1945. We had a qualitative break,
though (who knows) we could go back to the manufacturing, financial,
and military rivalry of yesteryear... (ou sont les neige d'antan?)
--
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
