Forwarded from Jurriaan (on Amin)

Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sat Jun 2 14:24:47 MDT 2001




>
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Jurriaan wrote:
>
> > Yes ! I fully agree with Amin here.
>   [snip]
> >
> > Marx himself would never have sponsored any "movement against
> > globalisation". He would have said globalisation (in the sense of
bringing
> > together nations in global communication, information and financial
> > networks) is progressive, in unifying the world, fostering
internationalist
> > consciousness and breaking down barriers between ethnic groups. At the
same
> > time he would have subjected the economics and politics of the
modern-day
> > states system (in short, imperialism) to a thorough critique.
> >

Is the above Samir's or Jurrian's comments? in any case..

A thorough critique of the "economics and politics of the modern day states
system" (that is, imperialism) is _not_ necessarily exclusive of  the
"movement against globalization". They are dialectically related. Although
not all the movements against globalization are necessarily Marxist in
character, any justification for globalization in the name of progress and
internationalism is not Marxist either. Globalization can not be stripped
off from its capitalist/imperialist nature. Thus, I cannot see how the
above interpretation can be attributed to Marx as if Marx was an ardent
advocate of globalization ( as opposed to, let's say, provincialism). Was
such a dichotomy existed in Marx's analysis of capitalism at the time?  The
same Marx also wrote that British imperialism in India "created misery"
and plundered the Indian economy, while _misdeveloping_ (as I read),
without necessarily transforming.

John rightly said:

> >
> Really? Without claiming for oneself the power to read the minds of the
> dead with any certainity whatsoever, is it not equally reasonable to
> suppose that, like Samir Amin, he might have emphasised the continuity
> between the events of 1492 and modern forms of imperialism? Indeed,
> nowhere does Amin mention that he considers imperialism "progressive" in
> any of the senses mentioned above. Rather, he stresses that for the
people
> of the South and the majority of humankind, the expansion of Europe has
> been an unmitigated catastrophe, involving the theft of their labour and
> resources and, all too often, their total physical elimination.
>

Indeed!

> Any "critique" offered today that does not recognise these processes as
> integral, and not incidental, to the economics and politics of modern day
> imperialism is a mealy-mouthed, nay, a hypocritical and mendacious
> apologia. Or as Cesaire put it: "In dealing with this subject
[imperialism],
> the commonest curse is to be the dupe in good faith of a collective
> hypocrisy that cleverly misrepresents problems so as to justify the
> hateful solutions provided for them."

very much indeed!

---
Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222






More information about the Marxism mailing list