[PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner
- Forwarded message from Loren Goldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 07:18:29 -0800 (PST) From: Loren Goldner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Request Dear Michael, A couple of days ago on another list an Italian comrade suggested that not merely Lenin's theory of imperialism (which I reject) but the very concept of imperialism was superannuated today, if it ever had any meaning. I wrote the following reply, and decided I'd be interested in broader feedback. Would you mind posting this on your list serve? Thanks Loren Imperialism a Myth? Question for Antonio: if the U.S. is not imperialist, or if, as you say, imperialism was only ever a theory or an ideology, why does the U.S., long after the supposed end of the Cold War (not including of course the little lingering questions of China, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba) maintain a military presence, overt and covert, in 110 countries? Why did the U.S. become so involved in counter-insurgency in Latin America and the Caribbean in the 1980's (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, the invasion of Grenada)? Why did it provide military advisors to the Mexican government's military action against the EZLN after 1994? Why,in 2002, did it attempt to overthrow Chavez? This is not imperialism? How exactly would you characterize the various "revolutions" backed overtly or covertly by the U.S. in Serbia, Georgia and the Ukraine? Why does the U.S. embassy in Kiev have 750 employees? Some of us think that's connected to a geopolitical strategy aimed at controlling the borderlands of Russia and China, a classic remake of the 19th century "great game". Why has the U.S. backed the extension of NATO to include most of the former Warsaw Pact states? Why did the U.S. (oops, sorry, I mean NATO) intervene in the wars in ex-Yugoslavia and militarily humiliate Serbia? This is not imperialism? What was the meaning of the 1993 intervention in Somalia? Why is the U.S., officially and unofficially, so concerned about China's new presence in Africa, particularly where oil is concerned? This great power rivalry over raw materials in Africa, Asia and Latin America--don't we vaguely remember this from an earlier era? This is not imperialism? In East Asia, the U.S. maintains 35,000 troops in South Korea, important bases in (and a close alliance with) Japan, naval fleets ready to defend Taiwan, all of this aimed at containing what the CIA openly identified as the main future rival of the U.S.: China. And of course the U.S., whose military expenditures are 8 times the rest of the world combined, reserves the right to wage "pre-emptive war" against any perceived future rival. This is not imperialism? And should I bother mentioning the Middle East? Support to the hilt for Israel, helping foment the (how short lived!) "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon, close ties with NATO partner Turkey as a counter-weight to Iran. The U.S. has more military hardware in little Gulf State Qatar than in any other country in the world except Germany. This is not imperialism? Turning away from the U.S. for a moment, what about the French role in the French zone in Africa? Troops in Chad and Mali and the Ivory Coast? The French role in the Rwandan bloodletting? The strong support for the FLN government in Algeria during the civil war against the FIS? And the Japanese outsourcing system throughout Southeast Asia? This is not imperialism? You will of course have noticed that I have limited myself to the mainly military and counter-insurgent level. Let's not--without being reductionist or vulgar, God forbid!--forget the 200+ multinationals, most of them American, which still constitute the lion's share (and an increased share) of world production. The weight of the U.S. through "international" institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, imposing "structural adjustment" programs on 100 developing countries, producing 60+ failed states or near-failed states? The "fact" that the income ratio of the West to the developing world has greatly INCREASED (I don't have the exact figures) in the past 30 years, in spite of important development in countries such as China, Brazil, India during that time? How do YOU explain such a phenomenon, if imperialism no longer exists and (if I understand you) never did? You ask what imperialism means when a country such as China, with an average per capita income of $1200 a year, has lent something like $1 trillion to the "lone superpower", the U.S. while masses of people in the U.S. have become impoverished? Well, that's a very good question, and if you read Michael Hudson's excellent book, Super-Imperialism (1972; new edition 2002) you will see that U.S. imperialism since World War II has not, indeed, followed Lenin's model (which was always flawed), but has perfected the strategy of "managing empire through bankruptcy". You overlook the fact that that $1 trillion consists of little green pieces of paper exchanged for re
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner
I'm not going to quibble with the details, but there's a key point that needs to be emphasized. It's true that Lenin's theory of imperialism was seriously flawed, but he was right that imperialism is a social system of power and not (as Kautsky maintained) merely a policy of government backed by one fraction of capital.And the US is not imperialism as much as it is the hegemon in the imperialist system. -- Jim Devine / "Because things are the way they are, things will not stay the way they are." -- Bertolt Brecht
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner
At 10:19 PM 12/3/2006, you wrote: That, to me, is THE question today which the theoreticians, still working off the Leninist model of "anti-imperialism" have to answer. How much longer can the international left be offering "critical support"' or "military support" to the Taliban before it finds itself, as so many times in the past, the ideological midwife of a new reactionary constellation? Loren (reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) This is bizarre. A long rambling iconoclastic attack on Leninism that is prefaced by an invitation: "I wrote the following reply, and decided I'd be interested in broader feedback. Would you mind posting this on your list serve?" Goldner is not subscribed to pen-l and has never seemed interested in "broader feedback" as far as I can tell. For all his council communist animosity toward Leninists, he seems far more imperious than Lenin or Trotsky at their worst. Over the past month or so, I have been treated to one sweeping attack on Marxism or Leninism from a variety of people. I put down my copy of Gabriel Kolko's crude anti-Communism in "After Socialism", come into the living room to check my email--only to discover that people like me are offering "critical support" to the Taliban. I have nor heard more obnoxious baiting on Fox Cable news. It is separated by six degrees from Bill O'Reilly's "Do you want American to win in Iraq?" Well, I am opposed to the US war on terror wherever it is taking place. If this means "critical support" to the Taliban, so be it. With respect to offering "military support" to the Taliban, I have no idea what the hell this is supposed to mean. It sounds like something out of the Spartacist League. If Goldner wants to go argue with them, somebody give him Bob Malecki's email address. I am too busy to track it down.
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner
In my reading on imperialism few, not several decades ago, there were three main texts provided: Bukharin, Luxembourg and Lenin. The point of departure of Lenin from the rest was in fact that military aggression i.e. the fifth analytical facet of imperialism was central to how the practice of imperialism in modern history unfolded and this was central to accumulation by dislocation. Realisation per se as Luxembourg emphasized would still put her on the side of under-consumptionist where a Keynesian dentistry exercise of demand management can dodge crisis forever. For Lenin however, this was a secondary issue under imperialism. The crux of the matter was that militarism held primacy in the reproduction of capital. This is quite a departure from the rest. The very points on the expansive military presence of the US that has been on the rise is evidence for Lenin’s point; and if one were to take the division of labour within world capital, true that the US has become a liability to the rest and the outflows (net) from the developing to the developed world were last year at 200 million dollars, however, that is because the breaking down of capital flow barriers has allowed for stronger cross border relations with the bourgeoisie everywhere and so on. The context has changed since the days of ardent nationalism, and even then there backflows for the outflows. So I guess Lenin knew that in some respects he will be outdated but not in the central theme under monopoly capitalism, in which accumulation by forcible dispossession dominates. Wars are “primitive accumulation”, however now it has little developmental role. But good piece from loren as usual. Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner
Just forgot to add lenin's definition of imperiliasm is more a theory of war. This is certainly better than cultural explanations of war. the worst racist comments that come out of imperilaist prolocutor is that these 'tribes hated each other for a long time.' Shakesperiam deus ex machina hate theories. god sent like. that is what john major came out of serbia saying after the serbo-croat conflict. i think the best thing to come marxism is that histroy repeats itself once as a tragedy etc. neither god nor man in his Fri#$*%^ nationalism can transcend history and it is the material conditions of life that shape consciousness and sahpe history not so much as i please now, mind you. Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner
another response from Africa Interesting. If this is all true, that I find interesting is the fact that then this is all planned, well thought out. The problem for me and what frustrates and exasperates me is that Africans are not planning, neither are we engaged in long range thinking. We have some very small minded people leading us with an overblown perception of our position in the global scope of things. We could obliterate ourselves off the face of the earth and not many in the West would be bothered. The West have think tanks. Some of their best minds paid to wake up everyday and think about the various issues of concern to their benefactors, which thoughts are listened to and used to influence policy. By the time something is happenning to us it has been thought out and planned for decades. By the time we figure out what is happening, we are "cooked". So for me all I can say is that we need to be serious and realise that we are in te 21st century. It is scarry to think that the majority of Africans are not living in 21st century conditions. They are living their lives a century or 2 in the past. It is a shame and we need to get serious and more so our leaders. Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com. Try it now.
[PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner From Zimbabawe
a student from Harare who says the internet will not go far: Certainly an interesting expose. What Loren Goldner asserts happened to Japan, as its reserves got reduced by 32%, and contends, China is likely to go through and see its owed loans and reserves reduced as it devalues to the expected RMB4:US$, is but a prototype or mirror image of what was done to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was seduced with supposedly "generous" loans when its exchange rate was Z$1:US$2 at independence in 1980. With external debt pegged at 3.4% of GDP in 1980, this rose to 40% by 1990, 62% by 1995 and 80% by 2000, and to anybody’s guess to the now declining GDP. Exchange rate changes at the appropriate time of transfer form a critical basis for the primitive accumulation. Most of Zimbabwe’s external debt was maturing around 1991, 1996-2000 periods. The Z$ plummets from Z$0.50:US$ in 1980 to Z$2.27 in 1989; $5 in 1991; $9 in 1995;$18 in 1997; $37 in 1998 ; $55 in 2000; and now $300 000 and many times over on the parallel market. As all this happens with no relevance to purchasing power parity, Zimbabwe has to sacrifice more export goods to meet the initial loan injections with value transfer in some kind of "Gypsy" great trick as it were. Like happened during the colonial imperialism, this exploitation will require local collaborators, and these are strategically positioned among the ruling elite in both ruling and opposition parties. Thus Zimbabweans demonise each other, are demonised, and when all is said and done exploited. Because manufacturing, which was around 25% of GDP has now fallen to below 10%, the exploitation has now gone to primary commodities including labour force, with over 20% of its "skilled workforce" now abroad. Increased mineral extraction for export, which is not rewarded by conspicuous forex earnings. Minerals such as platinum, which are known to be mined with lot of other raw high value minerals like gold; silver, copper, etc. are exported as raw platinum, extracted across the border/s and value accorded to raw platinum only. Talk of primitive accumulation, it is probably gone worse than the slave trade error, save for the human face and bits of human rights funding to divert people from the core problem. Your stomach is the slave driver. At the heart of the imperialist modus operandi is the existence a local collaborative cluster, with some semblance of legitimacy, and a local and international agenda to divert the genuinely concerned and more empathetic from reading the signs. Harare, 7/12/06 Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner From Zimbabwe
[a bit confused about the “from” Loren Goldner in the subject, but here is a response to what is said by the ‘student’] Tobacco is one of Zimbabwe’s major crops, but this is certainly not what this person has been smoking How can she go on about exchange rates, loans etc, and not a word about Mugabe, his destructive policies, how these drove away capital how he destroyed the agricultural sector, how corruption and cronyism saw to it that confiscated assets were parcelled off among the elite …. Then again, with prices and inflation what they are in Zimbabwe and cannabis growing wild and easily in any back yard throughout any country in Southern Africa, I could also write stuff like that about the Zimbabwean economy. Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St, Horison, Roodepoort, Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 83-368-1214 "Quando a verdade é substituída pelo silêncio, o silêncio é uma mentira" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of soula avramidis Sent: 12 December 2006 08:53 To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner From Zimbabawe a student from Harare who says the internet will not go far: Certainly an interesting expose. What Loren Goldner asserts happened to Japan, as its reserves got reduced by 32%, and contends, China is likely to go through and see its owed loans and reserves reduced as it devalues to the expected RMB4:US$, is but a prototype or mirror image of what was done to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was seduced with supposedly "generous" loans when its exchange rate was Z$1:US$2 at independence in 1980. With external debt pegged at 3.4% of GDP in 1980, this rose to 40% by 1990, 62% by 1995 and 80% by 2000, and to anybodyʼs guess to the now declining GDP. Exchange rate changes at the appropriate time of transfer form a critical basis for the primitive accumulation. Most of Zimbabweʼs external debt was maturing around 1991, 1996-2000 periods. The Z$ plummets from Z$0.50:US$ in 1980 to Z$2.27 in 1989; $5 in 1991; $9 in 1995;$18 in 1997; $37 in 1998 ; $55 in 2000; and now $300 000 and many times over on the parallel market. As all this happens with no relevance to purchasing power parity, Zimbabwe has to sacrifice more export goods to meet the initial loan injections with value transfer in some kind of "Gypsy" great trick as it were. Like happened during the colonial imperialism, this exploitation will require local collaborators, and these are strategically positioned among the ruling elite in both ruling and opposition parties. Thus Zimbabweans demonise each other, are demonised, and when all is said and done exploited. Because manufacturing, which was around 25% of GDP has now fallen to below 10%, the exploitation has now gone to primary commodities including labour force, with over 20% of its "skilled workforce" now abroad. Increased mineral extraction for export, which is not rewarded by conspicuous forex earnings. Minerals such as platinum, which are known to be mined with lot of other raw high value minerals like gold; silver, copper, etc. are exported as raw platinum, extracted across the border/s and value accorded to raw platinum only. Talk of primitive accumulation, it is probably gone worse than the slave trade error, save for the human face and bits of human rights funding to divert people from the core problem. Your stomach is the slave driver. At the heart of the imperialist modus operandi is the existence a local collaborative cluster, with some semblance of legitimacy, and a local and international agenda to divert the genuinely concerned and more empathetic from reading the signs. Harare, 7/12/06 _ Check out the <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=43257/*http:/advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta> all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Re: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner From Zimbabwe
students require patience and patience is a virute. maybe cannabis can do the trick - Original Message From: Rui Correia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 11:18:49 AM Subject: Re: question on imperialism from Loren Goldner From Zimbabwe [a bit confused about the “from” Loren Goldner in the subject, but here is a response to what is said by the ‘student’] Tobacco is one of Zimbabwe’s major crops, but this is certainly not what this person has been smoking How can she go on about exchange rates, loans etc, and not a word about Mugabe, his destructive policies, how these drove away capital how he destroyed the agricultural sector, how corruption and cronyism saw to it that confiscated assets were parcelled off among the elite …. Then again, with prices and inflation what they are in Zimbabwe and cannabis growing wild and easily in any back yard throughout any country in Southern Africa, I could also write stuff like that about the Zimbabwean economy. Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant 2 Cutten St, Horison, Roodepoort, Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Cell (+27) (0) 83-368-1214 "Quando a verdade é substituída pelo silêncio, o silêncio é uma mentira" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko "When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie" - Yevgeny Yevtushenko -Original Message- From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of soula avramidis Sent: 12 December 2006 08:53 To: PEN-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: [PEN-L] question on imperialism from Loren Goldner From Zimbabawe a student from Harare who says the internet will not go far: Certainly an interesting expose. What Loren Goldner asserts happened to Japan, as its reserves got reduced by 32%, and contends, China is likely to go through and see its owed loans and reserves reduced as it devalues to the expected RMB4:US$, is but a prototype or mirror image of what was done to Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was seduced with supposedly "generous" loans when its exchange rate was Z$1:US$2 at independence in 1980. With external debt pegged at 3.4% of GDP in 1980, this rose to 40% by 1990, 62% by 1995 and 80% by 2000, and to anybodyʼs guess to the now declining GDP. Exchange rate changes at the appropriate time of transfer form a critical basis for the primitive accumulation. Most of Zimbabweʼs external debt was maturing around 1991, 1996-2000 periods. The Z$ plummets from Z$0.50:US$ in 1980 to Z$2.27 in 1989; $5 in 1991; $9 in 1995;$18 in 1997; $37 in 1998 ; $55 in 2000; and now $300 000 and many times over on the parallel market. As all this happens with no relevance to purchasing power parity, Zimbabwe has to sacrifice more export goods to meet the initial loan injections with value transfer in some kind of "Gypsy" great trick as it were. Like happened during the colonial imperialism, this exploitation will require local collaborators, and these are strategically positioned among the ruling elite in both ruling and opposition parties. Thus Zimbabweans demonise each other, are demonised, and when all is said and done exploited. Because manufacturing, which was around 25% of GDP has now fallen to below 10%, the exploitation has now gone to primary commodities including labour force, with over 20% of its "skilled workforce" now abroad. Increased mineral extraction for export, which is not rewarded by conspicuous forex earnings. Minerals such as platinum, which are known to be mined with lot of other raw high value minerals like gold; silver, copper, etc. are exported as raw platinum, extracted across the border/s and value accorded to raw platinum only. Talk of primitive accumulation, it is probably gone worse than the slave trade error, save for the human face and bits of human rights funding to divert people from the core problem. Your stomach is the slave driver. At the heart of the imperialist modus operandi is the existence a local collaborative cluster, with some semblance of legitimacy, and a local and international agenda to divert the genuinely concerned and more empathetic from reading the signs. Harare, 7/12/06 Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
