[OPE-L:4728] Re: Re: Re: Imperialism (fwd)

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 15:48:50 EST

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Cockshott <paul@cockshott.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:50:38 +0000
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:4697] Re: Re: Re: Imperialism

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> Re Paul C's [OPE-L4669]:
> You seem to assume (see below) that military rivalry is a _sine qua non_
for inter-imperialist rivalry. What is the basis for the assertion that
military rivalry is a *necessary* rather than a *contingent* feature of
inter-imperialist rivalries? > > -------------

This is related to the history of the question in marxism. The debate
on imperialism in the 2nd international was in the context of militarism
and the drive to war. Ditto in 3rd.
If it is peaceful, then it is not the imperialism that Lenin was
fighting but the sort of super imperialism hypothesised by

> --------
> > The whole strategy of commintern had been based upon the
> > inevitablility of new imperialist wars. War was seen as the
> > match that would light revolution.
> > This was realistic.
> The Communist International under Zinoviev and Lenin did not advance this
analysis. For them, at the time of the founding of the CI ,revolution was on
the immediate agenda in a number of countries. Indeed, there were a number of
such revolutions, e.g. in Bavaria in 1918 and Hungary in 1919. In other
words, they did not argue that imperialist wars were the *only* "match that
would light revoltion". >

These revolutions were casued by the first world war.

Point at a single revolution in a capitalist country that has
not been the result of war.

Even serious social reforms often require the stimulus of war.

  > > The end of imperialist wars was the saving of capitalism
>  > How so? >

It removed the source of revolutionary tension.

> > I would define imperialism either now or in the past as a process
> > by which an economically politically and militarilly advanced state
> > conquers other less developed territories with a view to > economically
> > exploiting them.
> If that is your definition, could it be said that the US is the *only*
imperialist power? Of course, the UK and France have a military ... but it is
questionable how "advanced" those military institutions are at the current
time. > A question a little closer to your home: is the UK an imperialist
power in relation to Northern Ireland? --------------------

The US is arguably an imperialist power, but even it is restrained from
openly colonising territories by itself. Certainly there is no other power
that is a serious military rival to the US. Whether that will continue to be
the case I dont know. Watch the ongoing debate about the formation of a
military arm of the EU. France clearly wants this independent of the US.
Britain, does not as it has historically relied upon alliances with the US.
Issue in northern ireland is not an imperialist one any longer, though
it was such 200 years ago. It is now a border dispute between two advanced
capitalist countries. Multitude of similar border disputes in Europe over the
last century. Mostly generated by the formation of the Wilsonian republics.

> In solidarity, Jerry
Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
0141 330 3125  mobile:07946 476966

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST