Empire on Lenin

Victor vrosado at ic.sunysb.edu
Mon Dec 10 21:01:13 MST 2001


on 12/10/01 9:20 PM, Carrol Cox at cbcox at ilstu.edu wrote:

> To jump several stages -- if this were true, then inter-imperialist war
> would no longer be a threat, because the individual imperialist nations
> are no longer tied to the interests of a distinct national capital.
>
> If this is so, if there is no longer any danger of inter-imperialist
> war, why is the U.S. so determined to maintain armies of occupation (not
> called that of course) in what would be its two most likely enemies in
> such a war, the EU & Japan?
>
> Lenin originally conducted the research for _Imperialism_ in order to
> explain the outbreak of the Great War? Greg, if I understand him
> correctly, does not believe another such war is possible, and hence
> Lenin's original hypothesis is no longer politically relevant.


I would take the middle ground:  an argument somewhere in between Carrol's
and Greg's.  We are moving more in the direction of "international capital",
although inter-imperialist rivalries have not deteriorated completely.

My guess is that the reason why nations still maintain armies of occupation
is because of the inter-ruling class war of regions (as rival elites battle
it out for a piece of global $$$$... the financiers of global capital will
support the leaders who can best maintain power... let the roosters fight it
out and the winners will get a nice reward; the loser will be eaten up by
the masters of global capital and their droogs.  This is one reason why the
US dumped the Taliban.  They simply could not maintain control and
'stabilize' Afghanistan) and because of the impending class war against the
future international proletariat.

-Victor


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list