Greetings James !
>>> James Devine writes:
At 10:07 a.m. 5/20/98 -0400, Charles wrote: ... >Might the below be a defining characteristic of superimperialism or ultraimperialism. as in the debate between Lenin and Karl Kautsky? Lenin's difference with Kautsky was not that ultra-imperialism could not occur, but that it would not mechanically, like a clock , automatically turn into world peace and socialism. In 1915 Kautsky had said:
>"Cannot the present imperilaist policy be supplanted by a new,
ultra-imperialist policy, which will introduce the common exploitation of
the world by internationally united finance capital in place of the mutual
rivalries of natonal finance capital ? Such a new phase of capitalism is at
any rate conceivable."<
James -BTW, this doesn't sound "mechanical" to me.
Charles - If I understand you, by mechanical I mean imperialism evolving into world peace and socialism without a conscious mass "act" (actually billions of actions in a way) by the working class. The objective conditions for socialism will not make socialism without the subjective factor as well. The objective conditions were ripe in circa 1915, but the workers in advanced capitalist countries did not ACT.
>The Russian Revolution of 1917 interrupted imperialism's march to
ultra-imperialism. Perhaps the fall of the Soviet Union has removed a main
obstacle to the development of imperialism into ultra-imperlialism.
> Ultra-imperialism is transnational almost mono-dictatorship of the
bourgeoisie (the intense, anarchic struggle between rival national state
groups of financiers is substantially abated from 1915) and thrombosis
production when in crisis. It is the second eve of world socialist
revolution, if the world working class intervenes as subjects united. with
theory and program, etc.<
James- a few points: (1) I wouldn't say that the "intense, anarchic struggle between rival national stage groups of financiers" was simply amongst financiers. Lenin's model seems to apply best to continental Europe. But that's not a very important issue for now.
Charles - Yes. Actually, the full idea of Imperialism is "the merger or coalescence of banking with industry -this is the history of the rise of finance capital and gives the term "finance capital" its content" (Imperialism; chapter III "Finance Capital and Financial Oligarchy"). John D. Rockefeller/David Rockefeller or Carnegie/Mellon are sort of personifications of it. Henry Ford was a finance capitalist too. From the discussion on this list , perhaps this is the essential sameness of the U.S. "stockmarket system" and the European "bank system" models, if I have any correct idea of some of Doug's comments.
James- (2) I don't think the struggle abated until about 1945.
Charles- I agree with this. I wouldn't say ultra-imperialism phase of imperialism emerges until 1985-90. It gets unexpected new "reserves" with the collapse of European socialism. In 1945, Lenin-Bukharin phase is fully operative.
James-
The struggle shifted from the military arena after World War I, over into the international-trade arena, in the form of competitive protectionism (trade blocks and the like). This in turn encouraged the 1929-33 international collapse, just as the pre-1914 struggle encouraged WW1. The _form_ of the competition changed, not the reality of it. (Bukharin, in his excellent little book on Imperialism, writes that international rivalry encourages _either_ war _or_ economic crises. Lenin, by the way, thought that B's book was superior to his own pamplet on the subject.) The international competition encouraged WW2, also, though I think that Hitler and his boys added new dimensions to the disaster (to say the least).
Charles - Do you have a cite for Bukharin's book ?
I would say WWII is well predicted by Lenin's theory of imperialism, so I agree. Also, destruction of the SU was the main thing the finance capitalists wanted from the Nazis. Actually, one thing the Nazis did out of line with the plan was to attack France and England first or interimperialsit rivalry took precedence over anti-communist consensus.
James- (3) The end of the struggle coincides with the rise of US world hegemony after WW2. This was not simply based on the relative power of the US vis-a-vis the other leading capitalist powers, but also the Cold War battle with the USSR. The Cold War period is the only period I know of that approaches Kautsky's notion of ultra-imperialism (in appearance). The US strived to be the de facto world government, stifling contention within the "Free World" while "containing" the USSR. Kautsky missed the factor of the external threat. He also missed the way in which the "ultraimperialist" unity was aimed against rebellion in the colonies and ex-colonies. (Of course, he lacked the benefit of hindsight.) There was no peace in this "ultraimperialist" era.
Charles - Yes. If I am going to put forth a theory of ultra-imperialism, it must be modified from Kautsky's. A main difference, as you say, is that in 1915 the paleo-colonial system was at its height, and dividing and redividing the colonies was an essential element of Lenin's definition of imperialism. It was a main basis for intra-European war. After WWII paleo-colonialism collapses and is replaced by neo-colonialism ( no occupying European colonialist state repressive apparatus, but "visiting" police forces,as with Viet Nam).
And as you say, the Cold War or the Soviet Union as the second largest economy to the U.S., surpassing all of the other advanced or "Great" capitalist powers.
It may be out of fashion to say but, a general crisis for imperialism. That general crisis has been temporarily abated, especially based on new markets in former European socialism, removal of barriers to non-European countries by Cold War/national liberation movements.
I am disagreeing some. I would say modified-ultra-imperialism is now. Before ultra-imperialism was blocked by existence of SU , etc., preventing worldwide consolidation achieved now ,temporarily.
James-
Ironically, this suggests that the 1917 revolution in Russia actually _encouraged_ an erzatz ultra-imperialism (by allowing the USSR to become a big player and "threat" on the world scene), contrary to what Charles says above.
Charles - disagree. See above.
James-
(4) With the end of the Cold War, an important prop for ultraimperialist rivalry is gone. The US is encountering the embarassment of equality vis-a-vis the other leading capitalist powers (relative equality, that is), which means that the US elite has to strive more for cooperation rather than acting the dictator.
Charles - SU, especially after its (partial) recovery from WWII was a main factor in forcing the transnational financial oligarchy to unite, drastically reducing the classical interimperialist rivalry described by Lenin. The main "rivalry" shifted to that between capitalism and socialism/national liberation. If the bourgeoisie had not united they would have been divided and conquered, especially if they had had a (capitalist) "world" war, as in WWI and II. As you say in the next sentence...
James-
On the other hand, the leading capitalist powers are much more integrated, both militarily and economically, now than when Lenin wrote. I think it's almost impossible to imagine a military confrontation among the G-7 powers, or within NATO. (Maybe, Russia could get in a war with the G-7 or NATO, but not with its current military situation.)
The military confrontation with the "third world" continues (as seen in Chiapas, e.g.), but in a lot of places the focus has shifted to IMF/World Bank type monetorture (e.g., S. Korea). The economic contention continues, but it's more of a matter of competition to cut wages and social benefits to attract multinational capital (what I call "competitive austerity") than a matter of tariff hikes. The austerity drive is the roots of the possible replay of the 1930s collapse in the near future.
Charles - Pretty much agree. I can't give the specific economic "etiology" of the "global" economy bust as well as you, but where there is boom there is a bust coming.
Also, there is a kind of faux peace now, as I think you imply. The extraordinary discrepancy between military forces of imperialism and the neo-colonies, in part created by the extraordinary build up for the Cold War by imperialism, has the ultra-war machine turning into its opposite: Pox Americana. But here is a point to really distinguish from the main old Kautsky theory and error: at best this relative "peace" is sitting in an eye of the world war storm. In other words, this peace won't last. We need revolution.
James- (5) The tension resulting from international competition will continue to cause problems, so there will still be an ultraimperialist drive to create a real world government, probably in the form of US/IMF/WB/WTO/UN amalgamation (in rough order of power). The unification of the world economy continues, so we might see an EU-type organization being proposed for the world sometime in the next century. Of course there is nothing inevitable about the success of this drive, while the actual results depend crucially on popular struggles to defend living standards and to attack the system.
Charles - I think along the same lines. So "workers of the world unite" is truer than in 1848. Who says Marxism is proven wrong ?
Also, as Lenin noted that imperialism increased the division or socialization of labor laying the ground for socialism, we might even say that ultra-imperialism lays some of the foundation for communism, with world government etc. But it won't occur mechnically or evolutionarily either. No progress without struggle, as Fredrick Douglass says. No crops without plowing up the ground. No omelette without breaking eggs.
James- For more see my article in the 1994 issue of RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY.
Chas.- Thanks much for the reference. I will get it or if you want to send me a copy: I am at 216 City-County Building, Detroit, 48226.
Charles Brown