Tomb has written an interesting message in the US policy failure for 60 years thread. I've started this new thread in which to respond as that thread now has 37 replies and us becoming too long.  It is certainly worth reading as the backdrop to this thread however. But please  post  further responses in this thread. 


Tom makes the point that when talking of the change in US policy we need to go back further than 9-11 and place it in the context of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.  At this point the world changed and we entered an era which he calls super-imperialism - the era of the last superpower.   However the "left" didn't  notice this change  and and therefore didn't produce any sort of analysis of the new world situation.

He goes on to define the super-imperialist era as 'the final stage of capitalism' in which we will see the playing out of the last contradiction - 'the contradiction between the workers and the multi-nationals'.   At this stage  the road to complete globalization is fully open and we are living through  a  period in which national boundaries, race and sex have no particular importance.  This is the fruition of what  Marx described in the Communist Manifesto as the tearing asunder of 'the motley feudal ties that bind man to his "natural superior" ' leaving "no other nexus between people than callous 'cash payment' - drowning out "the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation" (etc .... see previous forum posts  All that is solid melts into air and  All that is holy is profaned, also of course The Communist Manifesto.

.....


well that's my attempt to summarise what I think Tom means by super imperialism - that with the end of the cold war, the remaining superpower became free to complete bourgeois revolution.  It no longer needed or wanted to prop up  backward tyrannies in the Middle East and elsewhere, indeed these had not only outlived their usefulness but  had become liabilities.


He says that 9-11 was a catalyst but not the turning point because the process was already underway. 

(There are some links  in  the "Draining the Swamps"  thread which show this quite clearly.)

I agree with this but I also think that we do need to focus in on  the reality that there is a bitter and ongoing struggle within the ruling class about it  and that's why 9-11 became so central. It's why Bush et al have mostly framed the war in Iraq as a war against terror rather than as an attempt to spearhead a democratic revolution throughout the Middle East by draining the swamps.

Just as the pseudo-left has been unable to adapt to a changed world situation so has a large part of the ruling class.   And although the new policy seems bound to win out in the end, the impact of the opposition to it - from both right and "left" is slowing things down - literally killing people as well as  destroying  lives in other ways. 


Tom finished off by saying:

This process was already under way and would have taken place anyway. The important question is what is the difference between imperialism and super imperialism? What direction is capitalism taking now and what can we expect in the future. What are the progressive aspects of super imperialism? How do we speed up the move to the final contradiction, the workers and the multi-nationals.  What is left after the defeat of  Capitalism, what are the implications for socialism and communism?  I think we cant really talk about the development of technology meaningfully without understanding some of these questions.

These are really hard questions. It's easy for us to describe the big picture with broad brush strokes but so much harder to get into the nitty gritty detail.  The world is changing -  faster and faster -  but I don't think we have much of a grip on it.

All we seem to doing at the moment is trying to oppose the forces who want to slow things down.  I find myself getting really absorbed in thinking about green ideology and how to analyse and expose it  (I'm in the middle of reading Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers and feeling infuriated with his whole style) but that's possibly a distraction from the main game of trying to work out how we can play a positive role in pushing things forward rather than just opposing those who would get in the way.

By the way, to alleviate my anti-Flannery angst,  I just put up a newsitem (from the Australian)  about Flannery. It's called "Science for Believers"

 

I couldn't agree more, the "left" didn't notice the change after the cold war. I did a yahoo search "after the cold war" and found only 46,000,000 entries.

I didn't say that the end of the cold war went unnoticed by everybody,  I said that the 'left' didn't notice that we had entered a new era. 

So you turned up  46 million yahoo entries when you entered 'after the the cold war'.   I'm not surprised.    Search engines require you to narrow your search terms - and to do that you need to think a bit.

Hi Kerry

 

 I agree that you do need to narrow the search and do some thinking. If you narrow the search to super imperialism you get 997,000 entries taking you right back to when Kautsky coined the term and Lenin's dismissal of it.

 

ps Ive taken the liberty of contacting historians to get them to correct texts about German history to bring them into line with Patricks position that the Nazis were elected into power.

 

While Im nit picking yes Anita the Union demo did appear small on TV partly because a seperate demo was held at every federal Liberal MPs office at lunch time on a Tuesday.

 Owenss if the left (I assume you are part of the left) is aware of the current situation with super imperialism and have been for as long as you mentioned, then perhaps you could give us your/the lefts understanding of super imperialism at the present time.

 

Hi Tom,

I think the main ideas person promoting a theory of Super Imperialism is a US economist named Michael Hudson who wrote a book called "Super Imperialism."

owenss, as you stated there are numerous books papers etc (particularly in economic journals) on super imperialism.

Some of these articles/books which touch on the topic may not use the term super imperialism but nonetheless that is what they are talking about. I haven't found any that have a satisfactory marxist analysis of super imperialism and that is what we are trying to do here.


What I was asking you was what is YOUR understanding of super imperialism? It seems your have been aware of it for some time and obviously have read some material, what is your conclusion?

Hi Tom

 

 I think that your version of Super Imperialism is quite distinct from those of Kautsky and Hudson which in a way is a problem of its own as we now have three (if not more) theories under the same label. 

 

As to what I think -  well the change from 2 to 1 superpower did dramatically change the world freeing up the remaining superpower to mould the world with a free hand.  Hence we had the arguments about "the peace dividend" and "the end of history" and "resolving the Vietnam syndrome." The US was able to distance itself from some dictators while increasing its military interventions namely into Panama, Iraq, Somalia and Bosnia.

 

I think that imperialism is a two edged sword. It has been great that Capitalism has penetrated previously closed societies such as China, India, Vietnam, and the old Soviet empire as it has the potential to raise these societies into modernity. However ham fisted attempts to bring democracy to say Iraq I think will unfortunately bring about a very poor result.

Owenss I chose 'super imperialism' because I didn't want to use Kautsky's term 'ultra imperialism'. I am not stuck on the name. What is important is the concept. You can look up 'super imperialism' and get a million hits but it is meaningless. Even a refined search is a bit silly as we are talking about an economic stage of capitalism, not dictionary definitions of words.

Hudson and Kautsky have nothing in common with what I am talking about.

The problem with the so called left is that it just has a religious anti-U.S. stance. They are not looking at the development of capitalism and where it is heading because they think they already know  the answer:  "U.S. imperialism"! They therefore  don't bother doing any  analysis and like Hudson, get even more conspiritorial and paranoid as they try to defend their religion in the face of  reality.  I find it rather strange to defend dictatorships!

owenss, your brief summary of imperialism is what I was criticizing in my post. I think the U.S. is not as strong as it used to be and is getting weaker not stronger. On the other hand, the multi-nationals are getting stronger all the time.

What I am talking about is the politics of muti-nationals. What is in the interests of multi-nationals? Multi-nationals by definition are just that, they have no allegience to any country in particular. There are many examples of multi-nationals (Nestle) that have the majority of their assets outside the country of orign. They are happy to exploit workers all over the world and are continually wanting to expand their markets and search for cheap labour.


It is not in the intersts of multi-nationals to have borders, racism, sexism religion, etc. Mutli nationals require stable economic conditions in order to be able to exploit as efficiently as possible. Democracy is the best means for them to do this. Dictatorships are always corrupt and consequently are not efficient and slow things down -  while also adding extra costs which multi-nationals are not willing to pay. Dictatorships are also notoriously unstable and multi-nationals do not want to invest large amounts of money in countries that could either destroy or sieze thier assts as a result of upheavals. Dictatorships are just very unreliable and markets are  inefficient and corrupted under them.

The invasion of Iraq may very well have been caused by 9/11 but the war against dictators and feudalism was always going to be fought iat some point in  the near future. At some point it would have meant the end of Saddam. This war has been going on since capitalism, but now there is an overt  and urgent nature to the struggle.  What I amsaying  about is that we have to answer thequestion what is the driving force behind this struggle at the minute and consequently how will it evolve?  This war I feel will not  subside but will intesify and people like Gaddafi can see the writing on the wall. 

Do multi nationals support U.S. imperialism? I am sure they do when it suits them but I am also sure they place pressure on the U.S. to pursue policies that are in multi-nationals interests. They have little interest in assisting local U.S. companies as they are in competition with them. There are still a large number of national corporations in the U.S. as with other advanced capitalist countries and they are pushing imperialist policies. The battle between them and the multi nationals has been a constant ever since multi-nationals came on the scene. The point I am making is that the multi-nationals are now a significant player -  so just how much influence on world events do they have?

Multi-nationals like the bourgeoisie are not in an exclusive club that meets on a reegular basis,  but they do know what is in their interests and are united in pushing for their interests. Multi-nationals are also in a bitter fight to the death with each other for markets. The international stage with the GATT agreement and the WTO and the world bank,  signify that the the multi-nationals are getting a stronger hold on international politics.

What we need to develop is our understanding of multi nationals and thier politics. Their politics are not the same as those of imperialist countries.  What will the world be like when multi-nationals have control? Will people be confused like Kautsky and be thinking it will be a time of peaceful co-existance?

Will the issue be confused by the rapid development of technology or will the limited and cumbersome way multi nationals appraoch science be a catalyst for change?

The  recently released  Human Security Report  provides some interesting data in support of what Tom B has said about  globalization and the direction of change in the world today.

According to the report the number of armed conflicts throughout the world has declined by 40% since 1992. This includes both international wars (ie wars between states) and civil wars.

The report exlains this in terms of both the end of colonialism and the end of the cold war.

The end of the political confrontation between East
and West in the late 1980s not only removed the only
real threat of war between the major powers, but also
meant that Washington and Moscow stopped supporting
‘proxy wars’ in the developing world. Denied the external
assistance that had long sustained them, many
of these conflicts simply petered out, or were ended by
negotiated settlements.

It then goes on to list a number of closely related factors such as:

A dramatic increase in the number of democracies.
In 1946, there were 20 democracies in the
world; in 2005, there were 88. Many scholars argue that this trend has reduced the likelihood of international
war because democratic states almost never
fight each other.

° An increase in economic interdependence.
Greater global economic interdependence has increased
the costs of cross-border aggression while
reducing its benefits.

° A decline in the economic utility of war. The
most effective path to prosperity in modern economies
is through increasing productivity and international
trade, not through seizing land and raw materials.
In addition, the existence of an open global
trading regime means it is nearly always cheaper to
buy resources from overseas than to use force to acquire
them.

The full report can be downloaded in parts from here and there's a media release and summary which can be accessed here

Here's a list of the key findings from the above summary:

Key Findings

Patterns of Political Violence Have Changed

• The number of armed conflicts has declined by more than 40% since 1992. The deadliest conflicts (those with 1000 or more battle-deaths) dropped even more dramatically––by 80%.

• The number of international crises, often harbingers of war, fell by more than 70% between 1981 and 2001.

• Wars between countries are more rare than in previous eras and now constitute less than 5% of all armed conflicts.

• The number of military coups and attempted coups has declined by some 60% since 1963. In 1963, there were 25 coups or attempted coups; in 2004, there were 10. All failed.

• Most armed conflicts now take place in the poorest countries in the world, but as incomes rise the risk of war declines.

• The period since the end of World War II is the longest interval without wars between the major powers in hundreds of years.

• The UK and France, followed by the US and Russia/USSR have fought most international wars since 1946.

• Burma and India have suffered the greatest number of ‘conflict-years’ since 1946. (If a country fights two separate wars in one calendar year this counts as two ‘conflict-years’.) In 2003, India suffered more ‘conflict-years’ than any other country in the world.

• Most of the world’s conflicts are now concentrated in Africa. But even here there are signs of hope. A new dataset compiled for the Human Security Report finds that between 2002 and 2003 (the last year for which there is data) the number of armed conflicts in Africa dropped from 41 to 35.

• The drop in armed conflicts in the 1990s was associated with a worldwide decline in arms transfers, military spending and troop numbers.

• Wars have become dramatically less deadly over the past five decades. The average number of people reported killed per conflict per year in 1950 was 38,000; in 2002 it was just 600––a decline of 98%.

• In the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s by far the highest battle––death tolls in the world were in the wars in East and Southeast Asia. In the 1970s and 1980s, most of the killing took place in the Middle East, Central and South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. By the end of the 1990s, more people were being killed in sub-Saharan Africa’s wars than the rest of the world put together.

• The new dataset created for the Report finds that between 2002 and 2003 the number of reported deaths from all forms of political violence fell by 62% in the Americas, 32% in Europe, 35% in Asia and 24 % in Africa.

• The biggest death tolls do not come from the actual fighting, however, but from war-exacerbated disease and malnutrition. These ‘indirect’ deaths can account for as much as 90% of the total war-related death toll. Currently there are insufficient data to make even rough estimations of global or regional ‘indirect’ death toll trends.

• Not withstanding the horrors of Rwanda and Srebrenica, Bosnia, the number of genocides and other mass killings plummeted by 80% between the 1989 high point and 2001.

• International terrorism is the only form of political violence that appears to be getting worse. Some datasets have shown an overall decline in international terrorist incidents of all types since the early 1980s, but the most recent statistics suggest a dramatic increase in the number of high–casualty attacks since the September 11 attacks on the US in 2001. The annual death toll from international terrorist attacks is, however, only a tiny fraction of annual war death toll.

The world is flat thread, especially the dell theory of conflict prevention is relevant to this discussion too

These are comments about a book by Tom Friedman

For a country to lose its global supply chain status is serious economic and strategic issue

REFUTING 'ANTI-IMPERIALIST' MYTHS

A Review of Warren's Imperialism, Pioneer of Capitalism.

David McMullen

Bill Warren's book, Imperialism, Pioneer of Capitalism, performs a useful service by refuting much of the mythology that the left has embraced in the name of 'anti-imperialism'. On the other hand, he manages to create his own brand of confusion. He does this, firstly, by blaming Lenin's Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism for many of the left's erroneous views. And secondly, he is so busy extolling the historical mission of capitalism, that no effort is devoted to discussing how capitalism is an obstacle to human development and is becoming increasingly obsolete. Despite these shortcomings it is the myth shattering quality of the book that predominates.

Warren begins by reminding us of the basics of a Marxist attitude to capitalism:

(a) It is an advance in all respects on earlier forms of society.

(b) It develops the productive forces and society generally, so creating the necessary material or objective conditions for future communist society. This development also generates the contradictions which lead to capitalism's revolutionary overthrow.

Read more here

I ought to do this again so  not to morph into Patrick but ...why break a long tradition of badness now?

I'm not familiar with Hudson's concept of Super imperialism but I can't see much difference between the concept being put forward here and Kautsky's original.


That doesn't prove its wrong but its worth remembering that the pre-eminent Marxist theoretician at the turn of the last century drew much the same conclusions from the level of economic interdependence or globalization that had been reached then -- and was proved spectacularly wrong by the prompt outbreak of the "Great War" or "War to End Wars" which was defended as resistance to the dominant imperialist Great Powers on one side and as a fight for democracy against the Kaiser on the other.


At present imperial conflicts look a LOT less likely than they did just before that war, but they looked a lot less likely to Kautsky just before that war than they do now to us with the benefit of hindsight.


Its clear that the situation has radically changed since the end of the struggle between the "two superpowers" and has further radically changed since 911.


Its also clear that the "last superpower" is in very serious and rapid decline - contrary to the pseudo-left hysteria about it suddenly being able to dominate the whole world. But it isn't clear what further changes will occur.


The decline of the US following Vietnam led to the Soviet Union having a go at empire itself. So far China hasn't followed the same path and the regime there might well collapse before it can or as a result of its first major imperialist aggression.


But then again it might not. It certainly isn't true that we already live in a globalized world economy with transnationals forming a unified international ruling class. We still have separate national economies - which even have separate currencies unlike the gold standard prevailing just before the "Great War".


In particular China with a quarter of the world's population is rapidly emerging as a major industrial power with a fascist regime and there is clearly "strategic competition" between China and the US with Europe (and Australia) taking a very ambiguous position. China is hugely dependent on capital imports but does not share a transnational ruling class with the US or Europe. I would stick to the formula "either revolution will prevent war or war will give rise to revolution".


Certainly the complete absence of a genuine left is not a favourable condition for revolution preventing war, though that can also change suddenly and unpredictably as the working class is far more advanced than it was in imperialism's heyday and far less vulnerable to nationalism.


Apologies in advance as I won't have time to respond in detail to further discussion at the moment. Just want to suggest that much more analysis is required before reaching a conclusion.

The LastSuperpower is weak because since Vietnam it has been clear that it can't win against the people. So in that sense it's a paper tiger.

I suppose though that if China emerges as a second superpower we could enter a period in which  contention between two superpowers once again disrupts progress toward a fully  globalised and democratic planet. 

It seems that current US policy is to push things foward as fast as possible by aiding and abetting the democratic revolution.   That's clearly in the interests of its ruling class (even if a sizable section doesn't seem to realise it). 

Perhaps the key question is whether China's fascist regime can hold out aginst the world wide wave of democracy?

An interesting twist to the question of whether China's fascist regime can hold out is whether its successor would be bourgeois democratic or proletarian revolutionary democratic or whether China itself could disintegrate or whether the "Communist" Party could collapse and be replaced by another kind of fascist regime. I haven't tried to follow Chinese politics closely for decades but my impression was that the current regime is really isolated and widely hated by most of the population - including the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia - but that most of the people who hate it aren't willing to overthrow it for fear of what might follow it - especially the possible disintegration of China itself. A desperate regime could easily turn towards patriotic mobilization as a way to deflect forces that might overthrow it - eg forcible reunification with Taiwan is something the US is nominally committed to oppose militarily but unlikely to actually risk a full scale war over so it would enable China to establish itself as a regional hegemon and a much stronger power in Asia than the USA whenever the (enormous) economic costs of taking that step were seen as being worth it in a desperate internal situation. I'd be surprised if there weren't a lot more Maoists still around in China than elsewhere who have to keep their heads down now but would severely complicate the sort of "world wide wave of democracy" the US would prefer by again raising the spectre of going beyond bourgeois rule.

As I said I don't see a lot of similarity between what we are saying and Kautskys peaceful co- existence. I am talking about the era of super imperialism and agree that imperialism isn't dead. Unfortunately fuedalism isn't finished off  yet iether.

I think "revolution willl prevent war or war will give rise to revolution" is correct but not sure in the fuiture what war will constitute a war. If National boundaries are invetitably abloshed (even if there is/ar wars in between) and Capitalism is still dominant then I would imagine it would still be a fight to the death between capitalists. Milton friedman refers to private armies.

I am not suggesting that we sit back and let things unfold and all will be kosher. I think capitalism is changing and certainly there appears to be a change in international finance and banks. There are some banks that see themselves as facilitators rather than lenders as Multi nationals generally do not require loans from banks to finance ventures. I will need to check the figures on this as it has been a while since I looked.

We may not be totally Globalised but the process has moved along since the turn of the century and it has broadened peoples outlook and raised their political awareness. Developing countries have access to the internet and a large number use it.

Globalisation and Multi nationals also introduce the dominant culture.  Developing countries are trying to develop to the level of the advanced capitalist countries. The peole in advanced capitalist countries are embracing the dominant culture and in spite of the bad publicity a significant number want to live in America!!!!

I am not clear on what Multi nationals could do if for instance China was to create a situation where war was likely. Multi Nationals do have an impact and it is much greater than the turn of the century both financially and culturally.

I would agree the regime is at best tolerated by people.  There were people jailed  recently for producing a pro democracy magazine. There has also been fighting between residents and developers who have private police. These seem to point to an imminant collapse to me.

China is developing rapidly and as a result there are a lot of internal issues that make the situation very complicated. Despite this development it is still poor and largely undeveloped though.. The speed of development in some areas is staggering but in others insignificant.

My tip would be a bourgeois democratic regime. The general political and cultural level  is extremely low! But I would think the push for democracy is too strong for another fascist regime to take over. Maoists keeping a low profile and appearing at the right time would seem a bit remote to me. I am no authority on china but those  pushing  for democracy have a general understanding of bourgeios democracy re american movies tv etc.

I would have thought that in other countries it has been the communists that have been the best organised and the most active and mass based fighters against the regime. In china that doesn't appear to be the case.

There has been a lot of anti japanese propaganda in china lately as a result of the 60 years since liberation celebration. There is a considerable Japanese presence in China. The japanese have tried to defuse this by introducing some initiatives and injecting money into popular projects but are fighting a losing battle. This however may be a distraction to internal issues but a long way from convincing the general populace that they should have a crack at Japan.

I am not sure which will come first the development of China into a superpower or a change to bourgeios democracy . I would think that the upheaval the development is bringing will play some role.  The inefficiencies and corruption of fascist regimes  make it difficult for them to  continue to develop at a rapid rate beyond the early stages. China would seem to be an exception  at the minute but I have the impression it will  meet the "brick wall" in the near future. The opposition to the corruption and disorganisation is quite high. The frustration levels are high in a general sense. This is tempered of course by the rapid development which most people are benefitting from.

There is also a sense of national pride in China! This amy seem a contradiction to what i have been saying and probably is.

Would like to hear more on current situation in China.

From outside I haven't seen much sign of a Maoist opposition - though there are SOME signs - eg see the China Study Group website if it isn't blocked from your location (or reflect on why its blocked if it is).

Guess it would also be hard for foreigners to see much sign of it from within China either - even if they speak Chinese - after all what are fascist regimes good for if they can't force communists to keep their heads down?

It may be just wishful thinking on my part but your references to huge disparities in development rates seems consisent both with what other observers are saying and with the predictions of "gang of four" opponents of the current regime before it set off down this road and most interestingly, with Mao's "great strategic plan" in sending the Red Guards out to the remote country side when the writing was on the wall for defeat of the Cultural Revolution and restoration of capitalism.

As expected the overwhelming majority couldn't hack it and quickly returned to the cities (and generally gave up on revolution). But I would be surprised if those that did stay either in remote areas of the countryside or in working class jobs in the cities aren't heard from again when the situation they were deployed to prepare for fully matures. Even in the Tien An Men incident it was the urban workers joining in that got the regime really upset rather than the more bourgeois students. If the peasants in the areas left behind by the capitalist development start moving the regime is in deep shit and they might not be led by the sort of bourgeois democrats who oppose the fascist regime but still support the capitalist road that is leading to the polarization the workers and peasants are getting sick of.

On the general issue of Super imperialism, even if China peacefully transitions from social fascism to bourgeois democracy (like Russia and Eastern Europe) it doesn't follow that this would mean a merging into a unified ultra or super imperialism rather than a renewal of superpower conflicts.

Both the US and Britain were bourgeois democracies during periods of naval competition which looked as though the most likely war would be between them (though there hasn't actually been a battle between them since the British burned down Washington and the yanks ended up displacing the Brits quite peacably after the British empire was mauled fighting the Nazi successors to the bourgeois democratic Weimar Republic).

Whereas Russia was basically knocked out for a while by the collapse of the Soviet empire and in no position to compete strategically with the USA, an emergent China would not be in the same position and there are already signs of strategic competition (taken very seriously by the US military though not by its allies).

The key point is that a globalized world is nowhere near having a single transnational economy with a unified transnational ruling class. USA, Europe, Japan, Russia, China, India etc all have separate economies with separate ruling classes. A bourgeois democratic Chinese superpower could well have vital strategic interests diametrically opposed to a bourgeois democratic American superpower. Both a democratic India and a Hindu chauvinist fascist India could likewise have competing strategic interests. Even Europe is far more hostile to US interests than anyone would have expected before the collapse of the Soviet Union and Japan is preparing for serious rearmament.

The idea that globalization automatically means peaceful ultra imperialist development is precisely the liberal myth that Kautsky fell for just before the Great War.

That liberal myth looks a lot more plausible today (and is naturally being pushed very intensively by leaders of the bourgeois democratic revolution such as the Bushies). But the "automatically" is still a myth. The outcome depends on struggle.

I'm NOT saying that peaceful development of ultra or super imperialism is impossible - just that I would need to see a lot more analysis to be convinced that its inevitable. Sorry, don't have time to take this much further at the moment.

There is some historical material on China here including a whole book by William Hinton (The Great Reversal: the privatization of China, 1978-1989  which contains a first hand account of the Tien An Men  "incident")