Anti-US NZ imperialism (Re: Jose G. Perez)

Jose G. Perez jgperez at
Sun Oct 3 20:24:56 MDT 1999

>>But Aussie
and NZ bourgeois do also believe that the Berlin
Wall fell down for their own, egotistic, personal benefice.
Why not try to take the largest share? Because we must obey
the diktats by Washington? It is important to understand
the way a bourgeois thinks these things over, if we want to
be true to our decission to fight _our own_ bourgeoisies.<<

The Aussie and NZ bourgeoisies are also REALISTIC. The way imperialism
works, and everyone understands this, is that you're entitled to anything
you're big enough to take. A "Royal" navy of three frigates and a "Royal"
air force whose entire combat capacity is 19 A-4 fighters simply don't allow
you to take all that much. That's why the explicit military doctrine of New
Zealand is to act as part of broader multinational forces (when it serves
New Zealand's interests to do so is unstated but, of course, understood). I
believe this is also the main thrust of Aussie military doctrine.

I also understand why someone in Argentina would have a very painfully
learned appreciation of the capacity for autonomous action of an imperialist
bourgeoisie even when its own military establishment is dwarfed by that of
the Americans through the Malvinas war.  But the point is, the Brits (and
the French) preserved throughout most of the Cold War, and probably to this
day, the capacity to project force on a very substantial scale; the
Australian's capacity to project force is qualitatively more limited, and
New Zealand's is vanishingly  small. West Germany and Japan certainly have
the wherewithall to project force; how long it will take for them to
restructure their forces for offensive cooperative or autonomous imperialist
military operations is an open question. Germany certainly is going in that
direction. I do not know about Japan.

The U.S. forces conventional forces are exclusively structured for force
projection. There are no plans to defend the U.S. from an invasion, all the
plans are for invading someone else or duking it out with an attack from the
East in central Europe.

The difference is between having military budgets of hundreds of millions of
(the world as a whole, about $750 billion; the U.S., $263 billion); tens of
billions (UK $36.7 billion,  France $39.8 billion, Germany $32.8 billion,
Italy $21.1 billion, Japan $42.9 billion);  billions (Australia $6.9
billion; Belgium $4.6 billion; Netherlands $6.6 billion, Spain $6.3 billion;
Sweden $4.9 billion; Portugal $2.5 billion); and hundreds of millions (New
Zealand, $562 million).

I think that before people start investing with tremendous significance the
actions of one or another imperialist power, they should do a fairly sober
assessment of its potential and limitations, which might help reveal the
true significance of the actions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor at>
To: marxism at <marxism at>
Date: Thursday, September 30, 1999 4:12 PM
Subject: Anti-US NZ imperialism (Re: Jose G. Perez)

>El 26 Sep 99 a las 21:21, Louis Proyect nos dice(n):
>> Phil:
>> > [...] most of the
>> >'peace movement' here ... are anti-American and pro-NZ
>> >imperialism.
>> This goes overboard. It is not "pro-imperialist" to fight
>> to deny US warships a port in New Zealand.
>Since Phil's comparison with France has settled the
>argument, I will not expand on this. But I will, however,
>make a point:
>I do warmly understand the effort of the American comrades
>on this list and other lists to denounce the power of the
>American imperialists everywhere (the best example of this
>being the "U.S. out of North America!" slogan I have seen
>posted from time to time). And I do share it: if I am not
>wrong, it may be read as "socialist revolution against the
>bourgeois state in the USA!". Who could be against this?
>Now, as the previous paragraph announces, comes a "but".
>But I think one must try not to lose sight of the whole
>scenario. The fact that the USA are the most incredibly
>powerful imperialist country in history, the fact that the American
>military hegemony is undisputable, does not make them the
>_only_ active imperialist country, the one that plays first
>round in "Simon says".  Imperialism is a matter of
>bourgeois, that is national, states struggling for world
>hegemony. No bourgeoisie in this world has struck an
>eternal agreement with the American bourgeoisie to accept
>their rule dismissing any claim of their own. This would
>run against the essential core of the bourgeois mind:
>Now, when one carries one's own struggle against one's own
>bourgeoisie to the point when it makes one lose sight that
>there may well be other, independent, imperialist
>bourgeoisies to struggle with, it seems to me that one has
>been duped by the bourgeoisie one is fighting into the
>mistaken belief that there are no inter-imperialist
>contradictions, that there is no place for independent
>developments, that everything, always, does fall under
>one's own bourgeoisie's grip anywhere. And this is false.
>In fact, we may safely expect an upsurge of relatively
>"independent" imperialist actions by diverse bourgeoisies
>during the next decade. This may or may not actually
>happen, I am just stating a probable tendency. But Aussie
>and NZ bourgeois do also believe that the Berlin
>Wall fell down for their own, egotistic, personal benefice.
>Why not try to take the largest share? Because we must obey
>the diktats by Washington? It is important to understand
>the way a bourgeois thinks these things over, if we want to
>be true to our decission to fight _our own_ bourgeoisies.


Free computers.  Free Internet access.  I don't pay -- why should you?
Click on to get started today!

More information about the Marxism mailing list