[PEN-L:7145] Re: Re: imperialism and Imperialism

[ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224]]

Barkley,
This is a hell of a topic.  I am just at this moment writing up the 
results of our  case study/survey of the legacy of self management 
in Slovenia (which I will send you for comment before sending it off 
for publication) and I admit I don't know enough of what has 
happened in Serbia since  I was last there -- everytime I get an 
invitation to come someone  embargoes or bombs Serbia so I can't 
really find out what is going on, particularly with respect to social 
and public ownershi of the mop.  The last time I was there and able 
to make some judgement, the situation was decidedly mixed.

Paul Phillips,
\Economics,
University of Manitoba

ps. incidentely I am speaking next week on a panel  including the 
former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, the historian Michael 
Bliss who is "embarrassed to be a Canadian", and the former head 
of the Canadian force in Kosovo.  Every one of the panel is 
opposed to our current (and NATO's ) genocidal policy in 
Yugoslavia.  I will let you know of the outcome.

From:                   "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:                [PEN-L:7129] Re: imperialism and Imperialism
Date sent:              Fri, 21 May 1999 16:44:59 -0400
Send reply to:          [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Jim,
>      Actually Louis P. has argued that Serbia (or Yugoslavia)
> is socialist and he has a point.  He goes farther than I do in
> declaring that Milosevic was elected because of his defense
> of Serbian workers against imperialist privatization threats
> rather than for his appeals to ethnic chauvinism, and that he
> should be defended as some kind of leader of the global
> vanguard of the proletariat none of whose actions can be
> criticized because then one has become a mouthpiece for
> objectively pro-imperialist agents.  If the US atttacks him
> (and his supporters (along with a lot of other "collateral" folks))
> then he can do no wrong.
>      It is socialist in the old formal definition which I think is quite
> useful (this is Marx's definition, I believe) of state ownership of
> the means of production.  Now I know that a lot of people on this
> list don't like that definition for a lot of reasons, either finding it
> too narrow or too broad, or just plain useless.  Thus Louis P.
> has in the past rejected the idea that such places as Syria or
> Iraq are socialist just because they have high levels of state
> ownership of the m.o.p., if I am remembering correctly (and I
> wish to do so, given how heated we are all getting here, and
> I like to think of Uncle Lou as a friend these days),   Serbia
> under Milosevic certainly has resisted privatization and has
> annoyed various outsiders with this stance, although I do not
> think that David Rockefeller has called special secret meetings
> of the Trilateral/Bilderburgers to order Albright to zap Serbia
> because of its threat to global capitalism by its intransigence
> vis a vis privatization.
>       One other aspect of the current state of the Yugoslav
> economy, and I ask Paul Phillips to clarify this if he can (asked
> you before, Paul, but you desisted), is that it is my understanding
> that there has been some movement back towards central
> planning and command in the nature of the economy, compared
> with what was in place under Tito, that is away from market
> socialism. Although he has not discussed it, to the extent that
> it is true, based on past positions, I believe that Louis P. would
> also applaud this also.
>      A remaining issue that is very unclear is to
> what extent the half-baked remnants of the old workers'
> management system remain in place, to the extent that it
> ever really existed which some dispute, something I believe
> that Paul Phillips is more knowledgeable about than anybody
> else on this list.  I read an account from an Albanian Kosovar
> who claimed that after the removal of autonomy in 1990 that
> on the apparently still existing workers' councils that the Albanians
> could no longer voice their opinions.  But that is obviously just
> one probably biased person's perspective.
> Barkley Rosser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 3:43 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:7122] imperialism and Imperialism
> 
> 
> >Barkley wrote: >... There are deep ethnic conflicts with wrongs committed
> >on both sides [of the Kosova/o conflict]. Outside powers of various sorts
> >have gotten involved in various ways and in some cases exacerbated things,
> >including some parties in the US and Germany in the 1980s and 1990s. This
> >most recent war effort by the US and NATO is simply unacceptable and
> >causing far more death and destruction than anything it is accomplishing.
> >But I am more willing to blame it on misguided incompetence than on some
> >grand imperial scheme to dismember socialist Serbia. What has been
> >imperialistic has been the manner in which it has been conducted and the
> >assumption of the right to conduct it in violation of international
> >agreements and law.<
> >
> >Is there anyone on pen-l who sees Serbia as "socialist"? in what sense?
> >what do they mean by "socialism" and in what sense does Serbia fit this
> >definition?
> >
> >More substantially, I think that it's useful to bring up Vlad. Lenin's
> >concept of (capitalist) Imperialism not as a policy of a national
> >government (which is the way Kautsky and many others have seen it) but as a
> >type of socioeconomic system that arises from capitalism's globalization
> >drive. Frankly, I don't think that the idea of imperialism-as-policy
> >(Barkley's usage above) should be flushed down the toilet of history;
> >Kautsky wasn't wrong to point as much as superficial in his analysis.
> >Rather, I wish there were two separate words for
> >Imperialism-as-socioeconomic-system and imperialism-as-policy. Call them
> >large-I and small-i imperialisms.
> >
> >It's pretty clear that the US/NATO war against Serbia is small-i
> >imperialistic, as Barkley says. And such policies can be (and often are)
> >incompetent; consider the history of the US war against Vietnam.
> >
> >But what about capitalist Imperialism? To me, it's a type of system that
> >has a logic of its own that goes beyond the intentions and actions of
> >Clinton, Blair, Alnotsobright, etc. This logic creates changes in the
> >object conditions that these nabobs face, problems that they feel that they
> >must deal with as Leaders of the West, since they must preserve peace and
> >profitability for their main clients, legitimating and reproducting their
> >social system over time.
> >
> >Here, a recent article in the (US-based) NATION magazine by Zizek (sp?) was
> >suggestive. The article wasn't as as good as one single point that wasn't
> >really developed (though it did show up as a subheadline): globalization
> >created the mess in the Balkans and will create similar messes in the
> >future, so that in a weird and indirect sense, Clinton created Milosevic.
> >
> >Capitalist Imperialism involves, as old Karlos pointed out, a constant
> >drive for capitals to expand like crazy, not only in competition with each
> >other but also as a way to deal with fractious workforces. It tends to
> >"batter down all Chinese walls," a phrase which takes on new meaning in
> >light of recent events. But what it meant to Marx and Engels (in the
> >MANIFESTO) was capitalism's tendency to expand like crazy, swallowing up,
> >destroying, and/or subordinating the various noncapitalist social
> >organizations that people have set up around the world (unless the
> >resistance is too strong).
> >
> >For most of the last century, capitalist Imperialism involved competing
> >capitalist nation-states and/or the threat of a noncapitalist industrial
> >and military system (the USSR and USSR-type countries). But in recent
> >decades, there's been a slow (and sometimes rapid) shift away from
> >competing nation-state-based capitalisms or Cold War Imperialism to the
> >creation of a generalized and globalized capitalism, spearheaded by the US,
> >the IMF, the World Bank, etc. The new kind of capitalist Imperialism seems
> >more akin to that described by Marx and Engels than to the competition of
> >national capitals described by Lenin, Bukarin, etc. (A "national capital"
> >involves a government/business alliance promoting the wealth of a nation
> >(especially its richest people) using tariffs and other trade restrictions,
> >like the US before 1945 or so plus Japan, Inc., South Korea, Inc., etc.)
> >
> >The problem -- for Clinton, Blair, etc. -- is that the globalization drive
> >(as exemplified by the tearing apart of the old Yugoslavia into Croatia,
> >Slovenia, Serbia, etc., by Reagan, the IMF, Germany, etc.) destroys the old
> >_status quo_, disrupting any kind of societal equilibrium that may have
> >kept the peace. (A lot of Karl Polanyi's reputation arises from his
> >emphasis on this point.)
> >
> >Lots of businesspeople from the rich countries expect to profit from new
> >profit opportunities in the (what are now termed) "emerging markets" while
> >they are comforted by the imposition of free-market orthodoxy, often linked
> >to superficial (and thus nonthreatening) democracy. But the destruction of
> >the old _status quo_ can unleash the worst kinds of conflicts, as with the
> >ethnic hatreds of the old Yugoslavia or the religious nonsense of the
> >Ayatollah Khomeni. At the same time, the spread of the new economic system
> >and the "we're better than you" attitude of the New Men of Power who come
> >from the outside stirs up nationalist resentment and resistance. So, in a
> >weird and indirect way, Clinton (the spokesmodel for Imperialism) helped to
> >create Milosevic (the ethnic chauvinist who mouths anti-imperialist
> slogans).
> >
> >Milosevic uses "anti-imperialist" slogans, but it should be stressed that
> >(as far as I can see), he's not opposed to Imperialism as much as he wants
> >a better role for his country in that system: he seems to like the old
> >model of capitalist Imperialism as involving competing national capitals,
> >with his country as one of those national capitals, rather than opposing
> >capitalist Imperialism as a system. His opposition seems much more akin to
> >that of the Mussolini before and during World War II (i.e., the seeking of
> >a bigger piece of the world pie for Italy, at the expense of its neighbors)
> >than to that of the Zapatistas.
> >
> >comments? criticisms?
> >
> >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] &
> >http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
> >Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO out
> >of Serbia!
> >
> >
>