Anti-US NZ imperialism (Re: Jose G. Perez)
CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Sep 30 14:26:19 MDT 1999
I am jumping into a longer discussion here,
and I accept the caveat of Nestor"s "but"
However, I have been pushing this idea
that the interimperialist rivalry of Lenin's
elements of imperialism is one aspect of
imperialism that has substantially turned
into its opposite from the beginning of this
I would say this is true in part because
world wide imperialism had to unite against
the Soviet Union and socialism. Now that
the SU and Euro-socialism has collapsed,
the unity among the main imperialist powers
remains. There is little threat of an interimperialist
"world" ( meaning European) war.
The U.S. is not the only imperialist power, but it
is sort of the economic and political leader of
a inter-imperialism that is very united relative to
the inter-imperialism of Lenin's era.
I am not saying that this contradicts the
practice that Nestor advises here, but what
do you think ?
>>> Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky <nestor at sisurb.filo.uba.ar> 09/30/99
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.
More information about the Marxism