Re: [Marxism] The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences (Pamphlet)

[RKOB via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Thanks to Patrick Bond for his comments. As the author of numerous 
interesting and well-argued books and articles about the exploitation of 
Africa (as well as other regions), his thoughts are certainly welcomed 
in such a debate.


However, I think Patrick Bond is mistaken about the theoretical concept 
of "sub-imperialism". It is certainly true that there are states with 
monopolies which extract more surplus and those which extract less (to 
take his example of the different figures for repatriated profits). For 
those interested I would like to refer to my book on the 
super-exploitation of South which contains many statistics and analysis 
of this issue (The Great Robbery of the South. Continuity and Changes in 
the Super-Exploitation of the Semi-Colonial World by Monopoly Capital 
Consequences for the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, 2013, 
http://www.great-robbery-of-the-south.net/. As the book has been sold 
out it can be downloaded for free at this website.)


However, I think it is wrong to create a new category 
("/sub-imperialism/") in addition to the two central categories which 
were developed by the leading Marxist theoreticians when the epoch of 
imperialism unfolded ("/imperialist/" respectively "/(semi-)colonial 
countries/"). To give an analogy: there are many different layers inside 
the bourgeoisie – starting from the monopolist faction, the middle 
bourgeoisie, the small bourgeoisie (not to be confused with the 
petty-bourgeoisie!), etc.). However, all these different factions are 
part of the bourgeoisie and neither represents a new class category (let 
us say a "sub-bourgeoisie").


In my opinion, the problem with the introduction of the category 
"sub-imperialism" becomes apparent in Bonds brief reply to my pamphlet. 
He characterizes "all the BRICS" as "sub-imperialist" which for him 
(referring to Marini) means that they are "/powers that act as deputy 
sheriffs/". This raises the question: whose "/deputy sheriffs/" are 
China and Russia? In my opinion, these two states are emerging 
imperialist powers (for a list of literature which argues this case see 
below). If Bond believes that they are "/deputy sheriffs/" one wonders 
in which service they are. In the service of Washington, Brussels or 
Tokyo? Certainly not, as the accelerating rivalry including sanctions, 
military threats etc. between these two sides demonstrate.


In summary, I believe that the category of "sub-imperialism" is wrong 
when checked by reality and theoretically confusing.


Here are some of my writings on China as an emerging imperialist power:

China‘s transformation into an imperialist power. A study of the 
economic, political and military aspects of China as a Great Power, 
http://www.thecommunists.net/publications/revcom-number-4


The China Question and the Marxist Theory of Imperialism, December 2014, 
https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/reply-to-csr-pco-on-china/


China’s Emergence as an Imperialist Power, in: “New Politics” (Vol:XV-1, 
Whole #: 57), 
http://newpol.org/content/china%E2%80%99s-emergence-%E2%80%A8imperialist-power 



And here are some of my writings on Russia as an emerging imperialist power:

Russia as a Great Imperialist Power. The formation of Russian Monopoly 
Capital and its Empire – A Reply to our Critics, 
http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-russia/


Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism and the Rise of Russia as a Great Power. 
On the Understanding and Misunderstanding of Today’s Inter-Imperialist 
Rivalry in the Light of Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism, August 2014, 
http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialism-theory-and-russia/


See also:

Is Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism Incompatible with the Concept of 
Permanent Revolution? 
https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialism-theory-and-permanent-revolution/


Russia and China as Great Imperialist Powers. A Summary of the RCIT’s 
Analysis, 28 March 2014, in: /Revolutionary Communism/ No. 22, 
http://www.thecommunists.net/theory/imperialist-china-and-russia/



--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT,www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
ak...@rkob.net
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Re: [Marxism] The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences (Pamphlet)

[Patrick Bond via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

On 2017/08/20 09:01 AM, RKOB via Marxism wrote:

The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences
/A Pamphlet by/ /Michael Pröbsting (RCIT),18 August 2017/
...
3. Is the Category of “Sub-Imperialism” Useful?


Thanks for this. It's got great material in it. But let me jump to the 
end (see below), to ask why Pröbsting has only two categories of 
exploitation, when it is evident (as Marini showed in Brazil from the 
1960s) that there are semi-peripheral - or 'sub-imperial' - powers that 
act as deputy sheriffs and whose firms do far better in relation to 
accumulation within the South, than the fully exploited countries?


"As Marxists we must focus on the law of value and the transfer of value 
between countries and the political order associated with this."


Right then, I would add, here (were Louis not .txt-dogmatic rather than 
.html-friendly), a small .jpg of a graph that comes from the South 
African Reserve Bank, whose mid-2015 Quarterly Bulletin measured the 
extent of profit transfers. It's quite obvious that there are imperial 
powers whose corporates take more than 100% of repatriated profits; a 
middle layer - including all the BRICS - whose profit repatriation 
ranges from 20-50%; and an exploited layer with 10% or less profit 
repatriation. I'll send this to you off-list, but I discuss it as part 
of the theory of sub-imperialism - which also relates to other features 
of accumulation and class struggle - in the Marini tradition, here: 
https://peoplesbrics.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/bond-2016-brics-banking-and-the-debate-over-subimperialism-in-third-world-quarterly.pdf


The "political order" associated with this value transfer includes the 
IMF (where 4 BRICS countries are expanding their influence dramatically 
at the expense of poor countries), the WTO (where 3 BRICS helped destroy 
food sovereignty at the last summit in 2015), the UNFCCC (where the 
BRICS and West are the main beneficiaries of the "bullshit" agreement, 
in the words of Jim Hansens) and the G20. The latter's role in the 
expanded super-exploitation of Africa became abundantly clear last month 
in Hamburg, with Schauble's Compact with Africa, which is a public 
subsidy system for both Western and BRICS corporates to amplify the 
looting. Next month in Monthly Review, I will publish a long article 
explaining this, but here are a half-dozen more short pieces if you want 
to explore this problem.


https://www.pambazuka.org/emerging-powers/falling-brics-endanger-their-citizens%E2%80%99-health-starting-south-africa%E2%80%99s-jacob-zuma

https://www.pambazuka.org/economics/world-economic-forum-africa-germany-pitched-dubious-new-g20-corporate-strategy

https://www.pambazuka.org/democracy-governance/brics-new-development-bank-meets-delhi-dashing-africa%E2%80%99s-green-developmental

https://www.pambazuka.org/democracy-governance/taking-down-trumpism-africa-delegitimation-not-collaboration-please

https://www.pambazuka.org/global-south/will-washington%E2%80%99s-new-pro-moscow-anti-beijing-gang-drive-wedge-through-brics-2017

https://www.pambazuka.org/global-south/brics-fantasies-and-unintended-revelations

https://www.pambazuka.org/emerging-powers/imperialism%E2%80%99s-junior-partners

If anyone would like our irregular newsletter discussing what we term 
'brics-from-below' (focusing on social struggles and BRICS sub-imperial 
contradictions), please let me know: pb...@mail.ngo.za (We are having 
seminars in Johannesburg on 31 August and 18 September, as well as a 2-3 
September counter-summit in Hong Kong.)


Cheers,
Patrick

***

*Is the Category of “Sub-Imperialism” Useful? *

**

A number of progressive theoreticians support the conception of a 
“transitional” or “sub-imperialist” state as a third, additional 
category of countries in addition to colonial and semi-colonial 
countries. We have elaborated our criticism of the theory of 
sub-imperialism in /The Great Robbery of the South /and we will only 
summarize here briefly some conclusions.


Naturally if states undergo a process of transformation from an 
imperialist to a semi-colonial country or the other way around, they are 
“in transition” and in this sense it can be useful to describe a 
temporary process of transformation. However, the supporters of the 
theory of sub-imperialism don’t understand this as a category to 
describe the transition process but rather see it as a separate, 
independent category. And here lies the fundamental problem.


Capitalism unites all nations in the world via economic and political 
expansion and the formation of a world market. This process has taken 
place from the beginning of the capitalist mode of 

Re: [Marxism] The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences (Pamphlet)

[Patrick Bond via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

Thanks for this. It's got great material in it. But let me jump to the 
end (see below), to ask why Pröbsting has only two categories of 
exploitation, when it is evident (as Marini showed in Brazil from the 
1960s) that there are semi-peripheral - or 'sub-imperial' - powers that 
act as deputy sheriffs and whose firms do far better in relation to 
accumulation within the South, than the fully exploited countries?


"As Marxists we must focus on the law of value and the transfer of value 
between countries and the political order associated with this."


Right then, I would add, here (were Louis not .txt-dogmatic rather than 
.html-friendly), a small .jpg of a graph that comes from the South 
African Reserve Bank, whose mid-2015 Quarterly Bulletin measured the 
extent of profit transfers. It's quite obvious that there are imperial 
powers whose corporates take more than 100% of repatriated profits; a 
middle layer - including all the BRICS - whose profit repatriation 
ranges from 20-50%; and an exploited layer with 10% or less profit 
repatriation. I'll send this to you off-list, but I discuss it as part 
of the theory of sub-imperialism - which also relates to other features 
of accumulation and class struggle - in the Marini tradition, here: 
https://peoplesbrics.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/bond-2016-brics-banking-and-the-debate-over-subimperialism-in-third-world-quarterly.pdf


The "political order" associated with this value transfer includes the 
IMF (where 4 BRICS countries are expanding their influence dramatically 
at the expense of poor countries), the WTO (where 3 BRICS helped destroy 
food sovereignty at the last summit in 2015), the UNFCCC (where the 
BRICS and West are the main beneficiaries of the "bullshit" agreement, 
in the words of Jim Hansens) and the G20. The latter's role in the 
expanded super-exploitation of Africa became abundantly clear last month 
in Hamburg, with Schauble's Compact with Africa, which is a public 
subsidy system for both Western and BRICS corporates to amplify the 
looting. Next month in Monthly Review, I will publish a long article 
explaining this, but here are a half-dozen more short pieces if you want 
to explore this problem.


https://www.pambazuka.org/emerging-powers/falling-brics-endanger-their-citizens%E2%80%99-health-starting-south-africa%E2%80%99s-jacob-zuma

https://www.pambazuka.org/economics/world-economic-forum-africa-germany-pitched-dubious-new-g20-corporate-strategy

https://www.pambazuka.org/democracy-governance/brics-new-development-bank-meets-delhi-dashing-africa%E2%80%99s-green-developmental

https://www.pambazuka.org/democracy-governance/taking-down-trumpism-africa-delegitimation-not-collaboration-please

https://www.pambazuka.org/global-south/will-washington%E2%80%99s-new-pro-moscow-anti-beijing-gang-drive-wedge-through-brics-2017

https://www.pambazuka.org/global-south/brics-fantasies-and-unintended-revelations

https://www.pambazuka.org/emerging-powers/imperialism%E2%80%99s-junior-partners

If anyone would like our irregular newsletter discussing what we term 
'brics-from-below' (focusing on social struggles and BRICS sub-imperial 
contradictions), please let me know: pb...@mail.ngo.za (We are having 
seminars in Johannesburg on 31 August and 18 September, as well as a 2-3 
September counter-summit in Hong Kong.)


Cheers,
Patrick

***

Is the Category of “Sub-Imperialism” Useful?

A number of progressive theoreticians support the conception of a 
“transitional” or “sub-imperialist” state as a third, additional 
category of countries in addition to colonial and semi-colonial 
countries. We have elaborated our criticism of the theory of 
sub-imperialism in The Great Robbery of the South and we will only 
summarize here briefly some conclusions.


Naturally if states undergo a process of transformation from an 
imperialist to a semi-colonial country or the other way around, they are 
“in transition” and in this sense it can be useful to describe a 
temporary process of transformation. However, the supporters of the 
theory of sub-imperialism don’t understand this as a category to 
describe the transition process but rather see it as a separate, 
independent category. And here lies the fundamental problem.


Capitalism unites all nations in the world via economic and political 
expansion and the formation of a world market. This process has taken 
place from the beginning of the capitalist mode of production and has 
tremendously accelerated in the epoch of imperialism. Under these 
conditions, no nation escapes the formation of ever closer economic and 
political ties with the dominant imperialist powers. Such close 

[Marxism] The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences (Pamphlet)

[RKOB via Marxism]

  POSTING RULES & NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*


 The China-India Conflict: Its Causes and Consequences

*/What are the background and the nature of the tensions between China 
and India in the Sikkim border region? What should be the tactical 
conclusions for Socialists and Activists of the Liberation Movements?/*


/A Pamphlet by/ /Michael Pröbsting (RCIT),18 August 2017/

The pamphlet can be read online or downloaded as a pdf here:/
/

https://www.thecommunists.net/theory/china-india-rivalry/

*Contents*

*Introductory Remarks* 



*I.Recent Developments* 



*II.The Struggle for Domination of Bhutan* 



*III.The Background: Accelerating Rivalry between China and India in a 
Period of Capitalist Decay* 



China's /Belt and Road Initiative/

India's OCOR as an Alternative to OBOR?

India's Increasing Ties with US and Japanese Imperialism

How are the chances in a military confrontation between India and China?

*IV.China as an Emerging Great Imperialist Power* 



China’s Monopolies

Super-Exploitation of the Working Class

China’s Capital Export

China as a Military Power

*V.India: A Peculiar Semi-Colony in the Role of a Regional Power* 



A Brief Historical Review

The Characteristics of India's Semi-Colonial Economy

India's Economic Elites: Many … and at the same time Few

The Parasitic Nature of the Indian Bourgeoisie

India as a Regional Power and an Oppressor State

Brief Remarks on an Historic Analogy: The Ottoman Empire

*VI.Revolutionary Tactics in the China-India Conflict* 



*Appendix: Imperialist vs. Semi-Colonial State: Some Theoretical 
Considerations* 



1. What are the Respective Characteristics of an Imperialist vs. a 
Semi-Colonial State?


2. Is a Transition from Being One Type of State to Another Possible?

3. Is the Category of “Sub-Imperialism” Useful?

--
Revolutionär-Kommunistische Organisation BEFREIUNG
(Österreichische Sektion der RCIT, www.thecommunists.net)
www.rkob.net
ak...@rkob.net
Tel./SMS/WhatsApp/Telegram: +43-650-4068314



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com