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