----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Bond" <pbond at sn.apc.org> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 11:54 AM Subject: (Fwd) Ruminating on imperialism
> (Some good reminders of what's at stake, from a debate underway on Doug's
> list... Doug, you want to tell e-debaters how to sign up for LBO talk, if
> they want to stay abreast of sharp analysis of the
> war/global-capitalism/Empire/imperialism, etc etc? And does anyone know if
> there are seminars or beer-drinking sessions going on in SA anywhere to
work
> this stuff out?)
>
> ----- 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".
>
>
>
>