Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch

2011-01-18 Thread c b
Hear , hear, Waistline

CB

^
 Comment

 Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking  to
 secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating
 imperialism in
 this era of political domination of speculative finance as  a general
 imperialism defeats the mean of this tread: the end of  the imperialist
 epoch. Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of  imperial-colonialism is
 part
 of asking the question end of the  imperialist epoch.

 Lenin's Hobson unraveling of modern imperialism of his era was  useful
 because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and  political
 features.  Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital
 (financial-industrial
 capital);  hundreds of millions of slaves of a  direct colonial system and
 the fight
 amongst  direct colonizers for a  re-division of an already divided world.
 This fight for  spheres of  influence was based in the national productive
 logic of huge   multinational state structures.

 The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has  meant
 more than imperial outreach or a lack of rights of those  beings
 colonized.
 Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end  to the direct
 colonial  system; the end of neo colonialism and the  imperial colonization
 based on  financial-industrial capital.

 The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of  the
 colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule  expressed
 financial-industrial capital.  Vietnam Liberation and  unification in 1976
 is a
 world book mark on an epoch that began with  our revolution of 1776. This
 does
 not mean no one of earth is  oppressed and exploited through world
 bourgeois
 production relations.  Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism,
 has  been  superseded.

 America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span

 two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the
 British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct
 anti-colonial interest imperialist interest, and then settled the war
 against
 the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the  Civil War
 facing
 a  world with colonial states as direct appendage of  imperialist state
 structures  preventing its free flow of finance  capital beyond Latin
 America.

 The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct  colonial
 system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the  political and
 economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political  basis for imperialist
 war in
 the past century, rather than the economic  impetus for war under
 capitalism,  (anarchy of production with war  production being a profit
 center) was
 the fight  for colonies or  spheres of influence based on colonial
 possessions.
 The fight  between  imperialist states was not over one huge state
 colonizing another but   over the colonies represented by these massive
 states. This
 form of  imperialism  is very much part of the question end of the
 imperialist  epoch.

 The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct
 colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of
 finance
 capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to  recreate
 the
 direct colonial system. For the German state direct  colonialism meant
 revitalization of economic and social life - the  thousand year rule, or
 in lay
 person terms French wine, Polish hams  and Slavic slave women.

 American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's  Imperialism,

 sought to recreate the political world leading the  charge to wipe direct
 colonialism from the face the earth. American  financial imperialism sought
 to
 defeat its enemies and identified them as  direct colonizers of the world.
 It's  slogan was national  independence and self determination of nations
 up to and  including  the formation of separate states.  This battering ram
 against the   direct colonial system explains why Uncle Ho armies entered
 Hanoi at the  close  of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled
 Banner.
 Then  of course came  the policy change and the Cold War.

 This era of financial-industrial capital - finance capital, from  direct
 colony to neo-colony spanned from the results of the Civil War  until the
 1980's  and the Reagan administration. Bush I declared the  New World
 Order to
 the  citizens of earth. This meant in my mind the  imperialism we had known
 was being  jettisoned from history. Not  imperial outreach but imperialism.

 The imperialist epoch is the epoch of the bourgeoisie rather than  Imperial

 Rome, as its politically dominant sector - based on its  connection in
 commodity  production, sought to recreate the world in  its interest.
 Hence, a
 specific form  of imperialism. Each era and  epoch has its distinct
 political-economic interest.  What is the  political interest of an
 imperial capital
 resting on a 

Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch

2011-01-18 Thread Waistline2
In a message dated 1/18/2011 10:04:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
_cb31450@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com)  writes: 
 

Hear , hear,  . . . . 
 
CB 
 

Thanks CB. The intent was a general summary agreeable of the  broadest 
Marxist framework and divergent views of Lenin's meaning of  imperialism. The 
past decade of discussion of neo-liberalism as a regime is akin  to saying 
neo-imperialism. 
 
Does today's Latin America represent colonies or neo-colonies of American  
imperialism? Or political states occupying a certain position within the 
new  financial and military architecture?  Colonialism was a specific  
economic-social-political relation rather than just big states, little  
states 
or no state, oppressing peoples and oppressed peoples, etc. 
 
A couple of days ago was the 50 anniversary of the assassination of Lumumba 
 and occasion to rethink the question of transition to the neo-colonial 
state and  its subsequent development. The legacy of colonialism is alive and 
well in the  Congo and throughout much of the former colonial world. 
 
Yet, this is not ones father's imperialism. 
 
II. 
 
The investment banker and scholar Henry C.K. Liu, who is more communist  
than 90% of American Marxists, called today's imperialism neo-imperialism in 
 the context of a decade of writings focused on the new form of finance 
capital.  Liu deploys concepts such as capital as a notional value meaning an 
imaginary  value or lacking the surplus value dimensions that characterized 
the  financial-industrial capital of which Lenin wrote. 
 
Liu calls speculative capital speculative finance, buttressed by a new  
non-banking financial architecture and operating as a notional value in a  
monetary system of fiat money or rather currency. His premise is that 
financial  architecture is by definition different from economy that is 
production 
of  products, although the interactive of both must be examined in the 
concrete.  Thus he speaks of monetary policy - not as a thing in itself, but as 
a 
distinct  political form of rule over the economy. 
 
I think. 
 
One would have to ask him exactly what he means but his meaning seems  
crystal clear to me - a decade later, thousands of hours of reading later and  
shifting through his all of his writings. 
 
Liu is a communist with money. I mean communist in the sense of the  
movement that erupted with the dissolution of primitive communism. 
 
Liu calls for a system of sovereign birth credits - entitlement or economic 
 communism in the here and now, allowing the individual a lifetime of 
socially  necessary means of life. Being born with an entitlement as the social 
contract,  means a mode of distribution not requiring a previous or prior 
contribution of  labor as the means for consumption. It is left to society to 
reorganize itself  to meet all it reproduction needs. A freaking banker is 
more progressive than  many of the communists and Marxists. 
 
All of this is part of describing the new world we face and practical  
solutions. Neo-imperialism or neo-finance capital, might be the term we are 
 
seeking. 
 
Sovereign birth credits or birth rights as the mode of production and  
specific architecture of economic communism is something to think about. 
 
Go figure. 
 
Waistline. 
 

___
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis


Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch

2011-01-15 Thread Waistline2

 Historically, only capitalist countries which have intervened  
militarily to 
establish settler colonies or to set up puppet regimes to  facilitate the  
exploitation of these territories by their own  corporations and have been  
characterized as imperialist by Marxists  and others.  
 

In a message dated 1/14/2011 9:10:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
__shmage@pipeline.com_ (mailto:_shm...@pipeline.com) _  writes: 
 

Are you saying that China today is not capitalist? That Han  settlement  in 
Tibet is not massively sponsored by the Chinese  regime?  That the Tibet  
Autonomous Region does not have a  puppet government?  That Chinese  
corporations are not heavily  present in Tibet? (and were not even talking 
about  
Sinkiang!) 
 

Comment 
 
Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking  to  
secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating  
imperialism in 
this era of political domination of speculative finance as  a general  
imperialism defeats the mean of this tread: the end of  the imperialist  
epoch. Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of  imperial-colonialism is 
part  
of asking the question end of the  imperialist epoch. 
 
Lenin's Hobson unraveling of modern imperialism of his era was  useful  
because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and  political 
features.  Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital  
(financial-industrial 
capital);  hundreds of millions of slaves of a  direct colonial system and 
the fight 
amongst  direct colonizers for a  re-division of an already divided world. 
This fight for  spheres of  influence was based in the national productive 
logic of huge   multinational state structures. 
 
The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has  meant  
more than imperial outreach or a lack of rights of those  beings 
colonized. 
Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end  to the direct 
colonial  system; the end of neo colonialism and the  imperial colonization 
based on  financial-industrial capital. 
 
The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of  the  
colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule  expressed  
financial-industrial capital.  Vietnam Liberation and  unification in 1976  
is a 
world book mark on an epoch that began with  our revolution of 1776. This  
does 
not mean no one of earth is  oppressed and exploited through world 
bourgeois  
production relations.  Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism, 
has  been  superseded. 
 
America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span 
 
two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the  
British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct   
anti-colonial interest imperialist interest, and then settled the war  
against  
the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the  Civil War 
facing 
a  world with colonial states as direct appendage of  imperialist state 
structures  preventing its free flow of finance  capital beyond Latin 
America. 
 
The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct  colonial  
system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the  political and  
economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political  basis for imperialist 
war in 
the past century, rather than the economic  impetus for war under 
capitalism,  (anarchy of production with war  production being a profit 
center) was 
the fight  for colonies or  spheres of influence based on colonial 
possessions. 
The fight  between  imperialist states was not over one huge state 
colonizing another but   over the colonies represented by these massive 
states. This 
form of  imperialism  is very much part of the question end of the 
imperialist  epoch. 
 
The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct   
colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of  
finance  
capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to  recreate 
the  
direct colonial system. For the German state direct  colonialism meant  
revitalization of economic and social life - the  thousand year rule, or 
in lay  
person terms French wine, Polish hams  and Slavic slave women. 
 
American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's  Imperialism, 
 
sought to recreate the political world leading the  charge to wipe direct  
colonialism from the face the earth. American  financial imperialism sought 
to 
defeat its enemies and identified them as  direct colonizers of the world. 
It's  slogan was national  independence and self determination of nations 
up to and  including  the formation of separate states.  This battering ram 
against the   direct colonial system explains why Uncle Ho armies entered 
Hanoi at the  close  of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled 
Banner. 
Then  of course came  the policy change and the Cold War. 
 
This era of financial-industrial capital -