>>> James Devine writes:
Concerning a quote from Kautsky, I had written: >BTW, this doesn't sound
"mechanical" to me. <
Charles answers: >> If I understand you, by mechanical I mean imperialism evolving into world peace and socialism without a conscious mass "act" ... by the working class. ...<<
James- right. but that's not in the quote. Kautsky simply referred to the possibility of ultraimperialism, rather than to the possibility of socialism.
>>>Charles - I looked back at everything I said from where you excerpted. I was pointing out that Lenin did not contradict Kautsky on Kautsky's assertion in what I quoted from Kautsky. Lenin did not contradict Kautsky in what I quoted of Kautsky because, exactly as you say, Kautsky was not mechanical there. We have no contradiction here. The reason I quote Kautsky is because Kautsky's theory is now partially correct in 1998. Some of the elements of the socalled global economy are ultra-imperialist in the Kautsky sense. But some of them are not.
JD: >(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.<
CB: >>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" <<
JD: actually, I was thinking about Lenin's defn, but I don't want to get into a debate. I
CB: The quote above is of Lenin. I copied it from the chapter entitled "Finance Capital and Financial Oligarchy".( page 47 International 1939;1970)
JD f one thinks of a manufacturing corporation as a financial organization (as strictly speaking it is), there's not much to debate. But I think old Vlad, like Hilferding before him, generalized a bit too much from the continental Europe of their day.
CB: Well, I think you have more expetise on this than me, so I would not argue this. I have some evidence, but I have not studied it systematically empirically. I am not an economic historian.
The idea that industrial and banking capital are merged does fit the glimpses of them I get today.
JD: >(2) I don't think the struggle abated until about 1945.<
CB: >>I agree with this. I wouldn't say ultra-imperialism phase of imperialism emerges ntil 1985-90. It gets unexpected new "reserves" with the collapse of European socialism. In 1945, Lenin-Bukharin phase is fully operative.<<
JD I don't know exactly what you're talking about. (This seems to be the main point of disagreement in this exchange.) After 1990, there seems to be more disagreement amongst the leading powers than in previous decades.
CB
Approximately, 1985-1990 is key because of the collapse of the Soviet Union giving imperialism new markets unexpectedly to penetrate stretching out the current boom. Also, Reagan reversed several national liberation movements.
The comparison of unity or rivalry between the leading powers I would make is between 1990 and 1945 when Germany Japan and Italy, leading powers had just completed extreme disagreement with the other leading powers. At that time classic imperialism was fully operative. The current rivalry is significantly less between these now, but these same countries have more rivalry against the neo-colonies. Also, they have less rivalry now with Russia and the former Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe.
JD: > 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. (..) The international competition encouraged WW2, also, though I think that Hitler and his boys added new dimensions to the disaster (to say the least).<
CB: >>Do you have a cite for Bukharin's book ? << I don't have my copy (Monthly Review Press edition), but our library has the following citation: Bukharin, Nikolai Ivanovich, Imperialism and world economy. With an introd. by V. I. Lenin. New York, H. Fertig, 1967.
It's in the intro by Lenin that he states that B's book is better.
CB: >>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.<<
JD I doubt that finance capital wanted the mass slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, gays, commies, laborites, social dems, etc.
CB
If I understand you to be sarcastic, I wont argue. OK Hitler didn't deviate from the finance capitalists' plan for him. He carried out the exact plan of the finance capitalist, the most reactionary, chauvinist, racist, militarist sector of finance capital in open terrorits rule is fascism. So, I agree with you that the real world historic criminals were the finance capitalists and Hitler was their agent.
But did the Nazis have to invade France to do that ? Couldn't they have slaughtered the same groups by only marching east ? Plus, that way they might have defeated the Soviets. The delay may have been the difference in the war.
The Soviets inflicted 95% of the casualties on the Germans. The Western Front was the much smaller front. ... CB: >>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.<<
J.D. what is your theory of crisis?
C.B I agree with the Chinese symbol. Crisis equals danger and opportunity. Also, Lenin's definition was something like where contradictions cannot sharpen anymore without a qualitative change in the object.
The general crisis (if you promise not to turn me in) is the crisis all around crisis of capitalism in the era when socialism begins to replace it. Of course the collapse of European socialism makes one say this is absolutely wrong now. However given that processes proceed in ebbs and flows, ("zig-zags"not straightlines) the end of the Soviet Union does not utterly defeat the concept of general crisis. The crisis has been partially and temporarily abated. 7 years or whatever it has been is not a long time in historical terms.
Again, I cannot give you an economic prognosis worth a damn given the standards of this list, but in general, there has never been a permanent boom. Sooner or later there current boom must end. In fact, it has ended in Asia. Japan has been in recession for 6 years as I understand and it is the powerhouse. Now the rest of the countries (except China) are really having trouble. If the world economy is more integrated than ever before, that bust must eventually spread to the U.S.
However, it is often said that revolution may occur in rising expectations more than falling. So, I do not see this objective crisis as key to getting the movement going. The subjective factor is key. The objective conditions are overripe, putrified. ... CB: >>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.<<
JD- I think there's also a problem that I didn't note: the US and several other powers are trying to balance trade by exporting arms to what used to be called the "third world." (High-tech fighter planes in Latin America? Coming right up!)
CB - Yes, I wonder about the merchants of death, the military industrial complex trying to find new markets with the end of the Cold War. I would guess the mode of destruction is in some recession, counter the overall economy.
CB: >>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. ...<<
right.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Charles Brown