----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Seay" <entheogens at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 10:38 PM
> First of all, one might began to ask what Yoshie and
> Carrol intend by imperialism? I assume it is Lenin's
> summation, borrowed largely from Bukharin, Hilferding,
> and Hobson ,and not some of the alternative theories
> as proposed by Baran, Emmanuel, Amin, etc. It was
> summarized by Lenin in the following list:
>
> 1) the concentration of production and capital has
> developed to such a high stage that it has created
> monopolies which play a decisive role in economic
> life;
> 2)The mergiing of bank capital with industrial
> capital, and the creation, on the basis of this
> 'finance capital' of a financial oligarchy;
> 3) the export of capital as distinguished from the
> export of commodities aquires exceptional importance.
> 4) the formation of international monopolist
> capitalist combines which share the world among
> themselves; and
> 5) the territorial divison of the whole world among
> the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
>
> Now Lenin along with Bukarin saw that these blocks of
> capital were organized along national lines, as indeed
> they were and that this division of capital along
> national lines was an important impetus of war. I
> agree.
>
> However, what of the TENDANCY of capital to organize
> itself beyond national borders into global blocks of
> capital? I am not saying that capital is exclusively
> organized in such a way, but that there is a growing
> tendancy in that direction.
>
> So, the questions I have been trying to get answers to
> are (1) how is the Iraqi war viewed from the
> perspective of global capital? (2) as for these
> national blocs of capital interested in Iraq, who are
> they, what are their particular interests and what is
> the relationship to global capital? (3) Are Bush on
> the one-hand and, say, France/Germany on the other
> representing two different capital INTERESTS or two
> different political APPROACHES? (4) Can the political
> players Chirac, Schroder, Bush, etc be neatly
> identified with blocs of capital, how much do purely
> political concerns (their voting base, etc) affect
> their position, how do differing ideologies within the
> capitalist class affect the position?
>
> So, I dont think that the situation is as simple as
> saying imperialism, Empire, blah blah. I admit that I
> am seeking answers to the above questions and am
> grateful to be informed by Professor Bina and others
> on this list.
>
> As concerns Hardt's concerns about anti-americanism vs
> pro-europeanism it seems to me that he is simply
> stating that it would be wrong for the anti-war
> movement to have illusions about the "goodness"
> of Europe as opposed to the malevolence of
> America...in other words, that they should not back
> either. That the anti-war movement would do well not
> to back or have any illusions about these "bourgeois
> states" should not cause such a stir for our
> enthusiasts of the "Third Internationale".