Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
New Delhi, Jan 11, 2000 While more than 200 activists were staging a demonstration outside, three protestors sneaked into a heavily guarded venue session of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) Partnership Meet 2000, here today. WTO Director General Mike Moore had just finished speaking when an activist walked to the dais and spoke against the dangers of allowing WTO to police the world economy and also criticised the Indian industrialists for joining hands with "an evil force". Mr Mike Moore is in New Delhi on an invitation of the CII. Taking the delegates attending the conference by surprise, the three activists distributed to the delegates a copy of an open letter to the WTO Director General. Terming the WTO as a "Wicked Trade Organisation", the activists said that the recent protests on the streets at Seattle had clearly demonstrated that trade was not the answer for human development. "The protests that began in Seattle will now be seen in India," they said. A copy of the open letter to Mr Mike Moore is appended below: AN OPEN LETTER TO MR MIKE MOORE Jan 11, 2000 Mr Mike Moore Director General World Trade Organization. Dear Mr Moore, We have tolerated enough. For several years now, the people of India have been a mute witness to the systematic effort of the rich countries to recolonise the developing world under the garb of free trade. Over the years, the WTO has legitimised under TRIPs the steal, grab and plunder of biological wealth and traditional knowledge from India. Your patent laws have been designed to facilitate biopiracy from the biodiversity rich countries. We are aware that almost 90 per cent of India's estimated 45,000 plant species and 81,000 animal species are already stored illegally in the United States. To protect the economic interests of a few million farmers on either side of the Atlantic, the WTO has reached an Agreement on Agriculture, which is aimed at marginalising the 550 million Indian farmers and putting the country's food security at an unmanageable risk. For us, the survival of our small and marginal farmers, forming the backbone of the economy, is as essential as protecting the democratic traditions of this great nation. A majority of the small-scale industries in India have already closed down. The pharmaceutical sector, which made available medicines within easy reach of the people, is at the verge of closure. Multi-national companies, which your organisation essentially represents, have already embarked on the process of loot and repatriation of resources. And if the past tradition is any indication, we know that after you quit the WTO, you too will join one of these companies. Your interest in furthering the cause of these companies is, therefore, obvious. As if this is not enough, you are bringing in labour, environment and multilateral investment within the gambit of the WTO. In any case, Seattle has clearly demonstrated that you are merely a pawn in the hands of the United States. Unabashedly, you addressed joint press conferences with the US Trade Representative. You behaved as if she was your boss. You threw all the democratic norms to wind by permitting the US to hijack the global forum. The WTO is, as a placard being carried by a protestor on the streets of Seattle read: "Wicked Trade Organisation." Your agents in India, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), perpetuate the unequal doctrine on unsuspecting and gullible masses. For your kind information, many of the people you support have already sucked the national exchequer dry. For instance, the non-performing assets of the nationalised banks in India, milked dry by a few industrialists, stand at a staggering Rs 5,00,000 million !! The WTO protects the criminals. We cannot allow this to go on forever. Let this be a warning from the people of India. We will not allow a global system, which actually protects and supports the rich and the powerful at the cost of the lives of millions of poor and hungry. Mahatma Gandhi has taught us that tolerance of injustice is a crime. We will, therefore, no longer accept any sort of coercion, threat and injustice. You are perhaps aware that we have had a long history of driving out the pirates and the colonial masters. And we will do it once again, if need be. From Swadeshi Jagran Manch Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh Akhil Bhartiya Vidayarthi Prishad Bhartiya Kisan Sangh Laghu Udyog Bharati Swamajvadi Abhiyan Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas: >The question Doug asked was about the WTO and its impact on Indian farmers. >So I answered accordingly. Poor farmers hardly have any surpluses to be >affected by the WTO. Doug's question was not about the state of poor and >marginal farmers. Subject: Massive mobilisation in India against the WTO Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 From: Peoples' Global Action Secretariat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Massive mobilisation in India against the WTO Hyderabad (India), 2nd May 1998 - Hundreds of thousands of peasants, agricultural labourers, tribal people and industrial workers from all regions of India took the streets of Hyderabad yesterday to show their rejection against the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and neoliberal policies, and to demand the immediate withdrawal of India from the WTO. The rally was organised by the recently launched "Joint Action Forum of Indian People against the WTO and Anti-People Policies" (JAFIP), composed of 50 peoples' movements representing a wide range of regions and social groups. The demonstration was proceded by a three-days convetion in which the JAFIP was officially launched. The convention and rally, convened by a number of Indian peoples' movements, including the Karnataka State Farmers' Association (KRRS), the All-India People's Resistance Forum (AIPRF), the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) and others, took place against the backdrop of a growing wave of suicides of peasants, which according to all members of the JAFIP are directly caused by the impact of WTO-imposed policies. It also took place in the context of increasing state violence against peoples' movements all over India. The convention and rally were held in Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, because of the particularly high rate of suicides and killings in this Southern state, where more than 600 peasant activists have been killed by the Indian army from 1992 to 1998, and more than 400 suicides have taken place in the last five months. The assasination of peoples' movements' activists in Andhra Pradesh was intensified in the weeks leading to the convention, in what amounts to a very clear signal of the way in which the Indian government will deal with peaceful opposition to the WTO. The convention, attended by more than 900 representatives of peoples' movements, produced the "Declaration of Indian People against the WTO" which states that "We, the people of India, hereby declare that we consider the WTO our brutal enemy. This unaccountalbe and notoriously undermocratic body called the WTO has the potential not only to suck the sweat and blood of the masses of two-thirds of the world, but has also started destroying our natural habitats and traditional agricultural and other knowledge systems... converting us into objects of Transnational Corporations' economy of consumerism ... The WTO will kill us unless we kill it". The declaration also targets the national elites: "any struggle agaisnt the WTO-IMF-World Bank trinity has to go along a simultaneous struggle against the local ruling classes". Finally, the JAFIP also offers alternatives: "While opposing the WTO, we, the Indian people, have resolved to build a pro-people egalitarian social order through a genuinely democratic process". This declaration was accompanied by six specific resolutions demanding pro-people agricultural policy, expressing solidarity with other peoples' movements, oppossing the invasion of agriculture by multinationals, condemning the repression of peoples' movements, denouncing the wave of suicides of peasants all over India, and expressing the anti-WTO struggle of the Indian working class. All these documents will be soon available at http:\\www.agp.org The JAFIP made a call to all peoples' movements of India to take part in PGA's decentralised days of action against the WTO that will take place from the 16th to the 20th of May, parallel to the G8 meeting (Birminghan, 16-17 May) and the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of GATT at the second WTO Ministerial Conference (Geneva, 18-20 May). Prof. Nanjundaswamy, president of the 10-million Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS), announced at the Hyderabad rally that several hundreds of Indian peasants will be present at the protest actions in Geneva, representing Indian peoples' rejection of the WTO. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Doug Henwood : > How does this comport with Vandana Shiva's dire tales of Indian > farmers miserably exploited by international agribusiness and the > gene modifiers? The question Doug asked was about the WTO and its impact on Indian farmers. So I answered accordingly. Poor farmers hardly have any surpluses to be affected by the WTO. Doug's question was not about the state of poor and marginal farmers. As far gene modifiers go, cotton is the only crop where this has allowed by the government very recently, i.e. few weeks ago. This has not been allowed in other crops. It is too early to talk about the impact of the government's decision on cotton farmers. India is probably among the last nations to have done it. China has done it long ago. I have already posted a news reports on this question on this List earlier. I could provide message numbers, if necessary. Ulhas
Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
>How does this comport with Vandana Shiva's dire tales of Indian >farmers miserably exploited by international agribusiness and the >gene modifiers? > >Doug Ulhas was writing about rich farmers, not the poor majority. Why he did is anybody's guess. It is like asking somebody about the situation of farmers in the USA and getting a report on California agribusiness rather than the collapse of family farms all through the prairie states. In any case, for those who want a less sanguine view of the situation in India, I recommend Economic and Political Weekly at: http://www.epw.org.in/showIndex.php The current online issue has an article titled "Suicide by Farmers in Karnataka" by Andhra Pradesh, which makes distinctions between the "kulaks" identified by Ulhas and the poorer farmers who kill themselves out of despair. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: >1. Domestic prices of grain are higher than prices in the world market. But >Indian government fixes prices every year. These prices are >annually hiked. Such increases are disproportionate to the domestic rate of >inflation. The government is committed to procure any quantity offered by >farmers at that price. Farmers (when I say farmers, I mean kulaks) get >subsidised water, electricity and fertilizers. This subsidy is paid from the >governments' budgets. Banks in India are largely government owned. They >provide cheap credit to farmers. Even if farmers don't pay, nothing really >happens to them. This regime is possible because rich farmers are powerful >lobby in Indian politics. 70% of the constituencies for Indian Parliament >are rural. (Indian big business and kulaks are the ruling class.) Thus, WTO >means nothing. India has accumulated 60 million tonnes of food stocks, >because government keeps buying food stocks after harvest. How does this comport with Vandana Shiva's dire tales of Indian farmers miserably exploited by international agribusiness and the gene modifiers? Doug
RE: RE: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27741] RE: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline? Ulhas:>9. Foreign policy issues are not important domestic politics. Why should they be important? We are free and independent nation. Marxists, particularly of anti-imperialist variety, don't appreciate that calling independent nations 'semi-colonies' and 'peripheries' is the worst possible insult.< I wrote: >...The point of calling an "independent nation" a semi-colony or part of the periphery has always been to say that political independence is enough, since it is not the same as economic independence. < I want to add the the whole idea of dependency theory -- from which this general viewpoint arises -- started in peripheral nations, mostly in Latin America. So it's a matter of people "insulting" their own countries. JD
RE: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27739] Re: Re: Imperialism in decline? Ulhas:>9. Foreign policy issues are not important domestic politics. Why should they be important? We are free and independent nation. Marxists, particularly of anti-imperialist variety, don't appreciate that calling independent nations 'semi-colonies' and 'peripheries' is the worst possible insult.< I don't see it as an insult. Is saying that someone is a proletarian or a blue-collar worker or a peasant an "insult"? These refer to positions in a social systems, not to personal characteristics of the individual. The point of calling an "independent nation" a semi-colony or part of the periphery has always been to say that political independence is enough, since it is not the same as economic independence. LP: > Distribution of World Income: 1700-1995 > > 1700 1820 1890 1952 1978 1995 > India 22.6 15.7 11.0 3.8 3.4 4.6 so India has been doing pretty well since 1978? Obviously not doing as well as 1700 or 1890, but maybe we can say that India is eroding some of the negative effects of British colonialism. JD
Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
>9. Foreign policy issues are not important domestic politics. Why should >they be important? We are free and independent nation. Marxists, >particularly of anti-imperialist variety, don't appreciate that calling >independent nations 'semi-colonies' and 'peripheries' is the worst possible >insult. > >Ulhas >From Sanjaya Baru's "Strategic Consequences of India's Economic Performance" in Economic and Political Weekly, June 29, 2002 Distribution of World Income: 1700-1995 170018201890195219781995 China 23.132.413.25.2 5.0 10.9 India 22.615.711.03.8 3.4 4.6 Japan 4.5 3.0 2.5 3.4 7.7 8.4 Europe 23.326.640.329.727.923.8 US - 1.8 13.821.821.820.9 Russia 3.2 4.8 6.3 9.3 9.2 2.2 Source: Angus Maddison, Chinese Economic Performance in the Long Run, OECD, Paris, 1998 Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Doug Henwood wrote: > Ulhas Joglekar wrote: > > >Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today? > > The minute Japan and the EU begin an arms buildup and fight with the > U.S. for influence in the so-called South, and U.S., EU, and Japanese > capitalists withdraw their investments in each other - maybe. Anti-imperialism is almost dead is in large parts of Asia (Palestinian struggle excluded) and there is no sign that it will be revived in the forseable future. Thus, the contradiction between Asia and the developed world is not present either. BTW, the binary image of the world as consisting of "the Core" and "the periphery" is a myth. Ulhas
Re: Re: Imperialism in decline
> Tom Walker wrote: < Or waiting breathlessly to see what the corpse will do for an encore.> - Where? On Venus?
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: >Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today? The minute Japan and the EU begin an arms buildup and fight with the U.S. for influence in the so-called South, and U.S., EU, and Japanese capitalists withdraw their investments in each other - maybe. Doug
Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Ulhas Joglekar wrote: >I am not sure Marxists have a coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism. >Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today? > > There are theories of imperialism, not a coherent theory if by coherent you mean unitary. The same is true of the national question, etc. In fact, there were no "coherent" theories in Lenin's time either. There were debates within Marxism with not only Luxemburg versus Lenin, but Lenin versus Bukharin, etc. Lenin did not have so much as a theory that was intended for the ages, but an *analysis* that attempted to explain why WWI was breaking out. Thus, his attention was focused on rivalries between advanced capitalist nations. Monopolies, trusts, financial capital were key categories for him. In more recent times, the emphasis has been on divisions between advanced capitalist countries and so-called dependent countries. Some Marxists like the late Bill Warren, and Spinoza-Marxists like Hardt-Negri, believe that the advance of capitalism in the 3rd world will lead to a kind of levelling of the playing field. Warren at least tried to deploy economic data to support his theory; Hardt-Negri offer a kind of gossamer rhetoric that amounts to Thomas Friedman mixed with postmodernism. -- Louis Proyect www.marxmail.org
Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Devine, James: Ulhas:>>And what is Imperialism in the first place? > "Imperialism," as Marxists use that term, refers to a social system of >international domination, of most countries by others. (Unlike in >other perspectives, it is not simply a policy, a decision by government >officials.) Originally applied to the ancient Romans, Egyptians, etc., >one hundred years ago several Marxists (Lenin, Luxemburg, Bukharin, >etc.) applied the term to capitalism, likening it to the empires of old. I am not sure Marxists have a coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism. Is Lenin's theory of imperialism relevant today? Ulhas
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27654] Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline? Ulhas:> And what is Imperialism in the first place?< "Imperialism," as Marxists use that term, refers to a social system of international domination, of most countries by others. (Unlike in other perspectives, it is not simply a policy, a decision by government officials.) Originally applied to the ancient Romans, Egyptians, etc., one hundred years ago several Marxists (Lenin, Luxemburg, Bukharin, etc.) applied the term to capitalism, likening it to the empires of old. Later, some Marxists decided that imperialism could only be capitalist, so it wasn't okay to refer to "Soviet imperialism" unless it was decided that the Soviet Union was capitalist. Obviously, there is no final word on what the "true" Marxist perspective is on this issue. But it should be remembered that Marxism has involved large elements of debate. When it becomes a dogma, it's in the process of ossifying or even dying. Lenin dubbed "imperialism" to be the "highest stage of capitalism." (I interpret "stage" as referring to a specific type of social system associated with capitalist imperialism.) Unfortunately for him, there have two or three "stages" of capitalism -- and one or two stages of capitalist imperialism -- since he wrote. Of course, it's hard to figure out some times when one "stage" begins and another ends. JD
Re: Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
From: Nancybrumback: >thanks, carrol, for your response. however, the question was what is a >dialectical approach in the first place? And what is Imperialism in the first place? Ulhas
Re: Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
< thanks, carrol, for your response. however, the question was what is a dialectical approach in the first place? nancy
Re: Re: Imperialism in decline?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On 04 July 2002, Louis Proyect wrote: > > > Since > Wallerstein (and Resnick and Hardt-Negri) lacks a dialectical approach > to the USSR, no wonder this point would be lost on him.>> > > Thanks to Louis for furnishing the reference from Wallerstein. Since I > have not intensively studied his work or the work of Callinicos, I > don't really know what the differences are. But I am most interested > in understanding why the lack of a dialectical approach would prevent > one from understanding the USSR in a certain way. > > I guess my question is, "What *is* a dialectical approach? Why is a > dialectical approach better (more revealing of the truth) than a > non-dialectical approach?) The problem is that whatever their faults may be (and I personally think their work is pretty worthless), it is bizarre to accuse Hardt/Negri of lacking a dialectical approach. It might be better to say that their error is dialectics run wild, escaped from all grounding in empirical reality. I have not reread Wallerstein recently enough to comment there, but possibly his error is the same. Carrol
