[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

It strikes me that this whole argument of yours is pretty weak and unconvincing and really just boils down to the dogmatic assertion that it must be so because you say it is. You invoke Marx in support of your contention that the productive potential for socialism must be distributed evenly throughout the world before you can have socialism, although you don’t tell us where he suggested this.  Not that thatmatters too much. I certainly don’t need Marx’s blessing to hold the views I do and there are some things that Marx said that I profoundly disagree with, anyway.[and so forth]

 Perhaps before reading Marx's Critique of Gotha Program, you might wish to read Mark Twain's famous relic, "Tom Sawyer Abroad", of which this discussion has reminded me. It is a gorgeous story which describes how people are often struggling with contradictory indeas and input they receive throughout their lives. Tom Sawyer is a boy who has travelled a lot and read books. However Huck and Jimmy are two simple minded kids. All three are struggling, but the way it turns out between them is marvelously described by Mark Twain, and, of course, happens all the time for us too. Here is an excerpt of one of my favorite parts. It is happening when they are caught in the Great Sahara desert in Africa: But by and by Tom raised a whoop, and there she was! A lake, wide and shiny, with pa'm-trees leaning over it asleep, and their shadders in the water just as soft and delicate as ever you see. I never see anything look so good. It was a long ways off, but that warn't anything to us; we just slapped on a hundred-mile gait, and calculated to be there in seven minutes; but she stayed the same old distance away, all the time; we couldn't seem to gain on her; yes, sir, just as far, and shiny, and like a dream; but we couldn't get no nearer; and at last, all of a sudden, she was gone!Tom's eyes took a spread, and he says:"Boys, it was a MYridge!" Said it like he was glad. I didn't see nothing to be glad about. I says:"Maybe. I don't care nothing about its name, the thing I want to know is, what's become of it?"Jim was trembling all over, and so scared he couldn't speak, but he wanted to ask that question himself if he could 'a' done it. Tom says:"What's BECOME of it? Why, you see yourself it's gone.""Yes, I know; but where's it gone TO?"He looked me over and says:"Well, now, Huck Finn, where WOULD it go to! Don't you know what a myridge is?""No, I don't. What is it?""It ain't anything but imagination. There ain't anything TO it."It warmed me up a little to hear him talk like that, and I says:"What's the use you talking that kind of stuff, Tom Sawyer? Didn't I see the lake?""Yes–you think you did.""I don't think nothing about it, I DID see it.""I tell you you DIDN'T see it either–because it warn't there to see."It astonished Jim to hear him talk so, and he broke in and says, kind of pleading and distressed:"Mars Tom, PLEASE don't say sich things in sich an awful time as dis. You ain't only reskin' yo' own self, but you's reskin' us–same way like Anna Nias en Siffra. De lake WUZ dah–I seen it jis' as plain as I sees you en Huck dis minute."I says:"Why, he seen it himself! He was the very one that seen it first. NOW, then!""Yes, Mars Tom, hit's so–you can't deny it. We all seen it, en dat PROVE it was dah.""Proves it! How does it prove it?""Same way it does in de courts en everywheres, Mars Tom. One pusson might be drunk, or dreamy or suthin', en he could be mistaken; en two might, maybe; but I tell you, sah, when three sees a thing, drunk er sober, it's SO. Dey ain't no gittin' aroun' dat, en you knows it, Mars Tom.""I don't know nothing of the kind. There used to be forty thousand million people that seen the sun move from one side of the sky to the other every day. Did that prove that the sun DONE it?""Course it did. En besides, dey warn't no 'casion to prove it. A body 'at's got any sense ain't gwine to doubt it. Dah she is now–a sailin' thoo de sky, like she allays done."Tom turned on me, then, and says:"What do YOU say–is the sun standing still?""Tom Sawyer, what's the use to ask such a jackass question? Anybody that ain't blind can see it don't stand still.""Well," he says, "I'm lost in the sky with no company but a passel of low-down animals that don't know no more than the head boss of a university did three or four hundred years ago."It warn't fair play, and I let him know it. I says:"Throwin' mud ain't arguin', Tom Sawyer.""Oh, my goodness, oh, my goodness gracious, dah's de lake agi'n!" yelled Jim, just then. "NOW, Mars Tom, what you gwine to say?"Yes, sir, there was the lake again, away yonder across the desert, perfectly plain, trees and all, just the same as it was before. I says:"I reckon you're satisfied now, Tom Sawyer."But he says, perfectly ca'm:"Yes, satisfied there ain't no lake there."Jim says:"DON'T talk so, Mars Tom–it sk'yers me to hear you. It's so hot, en you's so thirsty, dat you ain't in yo' right mine, Mars Tom. Oh, but don't she look good! 'clah I doan' know how I's gwine to wait tell we gits dah, I's SO thirsty.""Well, you'll have to wait; and it won't do you no good, either, because there ain't no lake there, I tell you."I says:"Jim, don't you take your eye off of it, and I won't, either.""'Deed I won't; en bless you, honey, I couldn't ef I wanted to."We went a-tearing along toward it, piling the miles behind us like nothing, but never gaining an inch on it–and all of a sudden it was gone again! Jim staggered, and 'most fell down. When he got his breath he says, gasping like a fish:"Mars Tom, hit's a GHOS', dat's what it is, en I hopes to goodness we ain't gwine to see it no mo'. Dey's BEEN a lake, en suthin's happened, en de lake's dead, en we's seen its ghos'; we's seen it twiste, en dat's proof. De desert's ha'nted, it's ha'nted, sho; oh, Mars Tom, le''s git outen it; I'd ruther die den have de night ketch us in it ag'in en de ghos' er dat lake come a-mournin' aroun' us en we asleep en doan' know de danger we's in.""Ghost, you gander! It ain't anything but air and heat and thirstiness pasted together by a person's imagination. If I–gimme the glass!"He grabbed it and begun to gaze off to the right."It's a flock of birds," he says. "It's getting toward sundown, and they're making a bee-line across our track for somewheres. They mean business–maybe they're going for food or water, or both. Let her go to starboard!–Port your hellum! Hard down! There–ease up–steady, as you go."We shut down some of the power, so as not to outspeed them, and took out after them. We went skimming along a quarter of a mile behind them, and when we had followed them an hour and a half and was getting pretty discouraged, and was thirsty clean to unendurableness, Tom says:"Take the glass, one of you, and see what that is, away ahead of the birds."Jim got the first glimpse, and slumped down on the locker sick. He was most crying, and says:"She's dah ag'in, Mars Tom, she's dah ag'in, en I knows I's gwine to die, 'case when a body sees a ghos' de third time, dat's what it means. I wisht I'd never come in dis balloon, dat I does."He wouldn't look no more, and what he said made me afraid, too, because I knowed it was true, for that has always been the way with ghosts; so then I wouldn't look any more, either. Both of us begged Tom to turn off and go some other way, but he wouldn't, and said we was ignorant superstitious blatherskites. Yes, and he'll git come up with, one of these days, I says to myself, insulting ghosts that way. They'll stand it for a while, maybe, but they won't stand it always, for anybody that knows about ghosts knows how easy they are hurt, and how revengeful they are.

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For actually all your reading, Sepehr, you seem not at all interested in any criticism of what has become dogma: that socialists are duty-bound to support struggles for "national liberation” and you have simply trotted out the old anti-imperialism position of supporting the weaker country against imperialist aggression which refuses any real class analysis of war.

Your class analysis is a peculiar one. It certainly shares nothing with that of Marx. I would not call it an analysis, for the grotesque contradictions I see in it, to which I have alluded already.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As indicated by both you and Robbo “imperialism” is a very slippery word,  as all states seek to channel as much of world profits their way as they can. It is just that some states are stronger – some, much, much stronger – than others and so are better at doing this. In which case “imperialist” would just be another way of describing the successful states. But this does not mean that currently weaker states are not striving to do the same. As Robbo maintains imperialism is not something separate from capitalism.

In truth, Lenin's definition of imperialism is out-dated. You need to update your knowledge with the rich literature which has developed more recently. I already mentioned one article from Samir Amin. Your comment is a salient indication that you did not go through it. Anyway, in addition to that, I also strongly recommend reading "Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance ", written by Michael Hudson. Hudson draws the picture from a different perspective. All the statistics you have given here, which I had seen more than a thousand times in articles of other like-minded people (I think they all copy and paste from one another!), is nothing in the face of financial domination of the US over the entire world, including China. How is the US controlling global finance, how is the US able to finance its astronomical trade deficit and maintain the biggest military throughout the world, these are what Hudson explains in his book. We have reached to a higher level of finance capital, one which Lenin could not imagine in his wildest dreams. This higher level, interestingly, is what you fail to comprehend too. In other words, you have developed a dogma from Lenin's analysis, and you accuse me, or anyone else who comes from an anti-imperialist position, to have done so. I am not a propagandist trying to white-wash anything China or any other state has ever done. But I have enough brain capacity not to make a lacky out of myself too.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 “Anti-imperialist nationalism is the ideology of an actual or aspirant capitalist class that seeks the way to its own independent state blocked by imperialism and therefore must mobilize the masses to help break down this obstacle….. the logic of such movements is to subordinate the interests of workers and other exploited classes to those of the bourgeois leadership…" and that such movements can tie "…their movement to presently supportive states …that may well be prepared to use it as a bargaining chip in their pursuit of their own geopolitical interests."

And your so called "internationalism" is the ideology that seeks to preserve and extend imperialism and therefore must mobilize the masses to help break down anti-imperialism….  the logic of your movement is to subordinate the interests of workers and other exploited classes to those of the imperialist leadership… etc.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

No argument here from us there. Nor can we disagree when he says that:"…different Islamist tendencies and regimes that may now present themselves as anti-imperialist have a history of collaborating with imperialism …"

See the article from Samir Amin on political Islam. Islamists are not anti-imperialist in their essence. They effectively conceal the class struggle behind "cultural struggle" and anti-imperialism behind anti-Westernization. I see that you are doing the same thing, which makes me wonder…

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Or when Callinicos says:"… It is of the essence of bourgeois nationalists that, when imperialism prevents them for building their own independent capitalist state, they may lead struggles against it, but they are striving to carve out a place for themselves within the existing system, not to overthrow it. This means that, sooner or later, they will come to terms with imperialism…"

Oh really?! Then I suppose the two World Wars never happened!

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But surely the elephant in the room was to deny that the creation of the East European Bloc – puppet states –  by the Soviet Union and their rule maintained on two occasions by tanks, was not an act of imperialism.

I see all of the elephants, but there is a dinasour in the room which you never wish to see!With respect to you as a person, your reasoning is ludicrous. You may put your savings in the bank and the bank will give you some interest. In that sense, you too are a capitalist. So, the way you argue about "all capitalist states are imperialist", I could extend your argument and say, you as a capitalist are no less perilous for the "workers" than any other capitalist!This is how you have lost all your touch with realities. Of course, in a capitalist society, you need to live according to the rules. So did Marx, Engels, Lenin and everyone else. The same is true about China or any other state.  What do you expect them to do? Break all their weapons and vouchsafe to other "capitalist" states and be happy that "alright, now they are the bad guys, not us"?!Marx was not so dumb to overlook such a simple fact. How is it that some people do this in his name, I truely wonder…

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

Yes I am using the term imperialism in the wider sense to denote other forms of influence besides military. People sometimes talk of cultural imperialism, for example and this would be an instance of that.  You mention colonialism.  Dependency theorists talked about "neo colonialism" after the Second World War when various European powers grnated political independence to their erstwhile colonies.  The point they were trying to make which is the one I am trying to make is that the economic influence of the core  countries over the periphery did not disappear with the granting of political independenceIf you are limiting the term imperialism to just militarily attacking or occupying another country then I  guess quite a few countries would qualify as imperialist – such as the numerous states contributing to the coalition forces in the current Syrian conflict.  China woud qualify as imperialist becuase of its occupation of Tibet etc etc

Yes, imperialism involves other means other than military. The expression "cultural imperialism" is a sham one, designed to conceal and thwart the scientific concept of "cultural hegemony", which is altogether a different story, although, of course, dialectically interconnected with the concept of imperialism. What you refer to as the "dependency theory", generally pertains to the sponanious effects of asymmetrical development and how it precipitates inequality on an international scale with a free market system. In reality, these asymmetries can be mended by state intervention and collective policies protecting the underdeveloped country from overwhelming domination of foreign capital. However, whenever and wherever a country has moved to implement such measures, it has been sabotaged through direct or indirect intervention of imperialism.Imperialism may be in the form of direct military intervention, such as in the cases of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Vietnam, etc.It may be in the form of organizing a coup, such as in the cases of Chile, Iran, Indonesia, Greece, etc.It may be in the form of economic sanctions, such as in the case of sanctions against Vietnam, Iran, Russia, Burma, Libya, Iraq, etc.It may be in the form of "Financial Terrorism", a spendid example of which would be recent financial aggression against Greece.You should be able to see that all of these are aggressive means to force countries of periphery into complete submission. You are confounding all forms of trade with imperialism. Just because China is exporting cheap products to other countries, does not mean that China has got its imperialistic vicious tentacles all over the world! Show me one occasion in which China has colluded in a coup, or imposed unilateral sanctions, or blocked the flow of finance into another country…Tibet has been an inseparable part of China for thousands of years. Why would someone pretend as if Tibet is "occupied" by China and encourage people of Tibet to secede from China, which would definitely create a second Afghanistan-style failed state in that region?The answer to that question is obvious.1) Secession of Tibet will debilitate China and enable the US to force China into submission. This is indeed one of the objectives of the well known US project of "Full Spectrum Dominance", which came on its agenda after the dissolution of Soviet Union, code named "New World Order". There are countless documents, evidences and a rich literature around this subject.2) It could be used as a lame excuse to overlook ferocious attrocities committed by the real imperialism, i.e. the US and its subaltern allies.Therefore, not only China is not an imperialist power, but also, I would argue, even Russia does not qualify as such. Even though Russia has indeed engaged in military campaigns in a few occasions, and has slapped some countries with its own sanctions, it has so far done all of that in a tit-for-tat retaliation. If you slap someone and he slaps you back, you cannot accuse him of aggression; you are the aggressor!It is not a surprise for me to see you talking about "Chinese imperialism", "Russian imperialism", and even "Indian imperialism"! As I mentioned earlier, the whole focus of some part of the "left" is to relegate Marxism to a mere wherewithal of bolstering powers of status-quo and crushing all struggles challenging those powers. In that sense, you walk along the same lines as do miscreants known as neoconservatives and neoliberal imperialists.

robbo203 wrote:

Sepehr wrote:

Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

I am not quite sure what your point is and wish you would not speak in riddles.  Are you defending Chinese state capitalism?

I believe you are now in possession of the key to solve this riddle. See the beginning of this comment, where I have explained what is imperialism and why China is targeted by the sharp edge of some part of the "left", who sing, in unison, mantra of the ultra-right-wing neocons. Your credo does not produce revolutionaries, but stooges.

robbo203 wrote:

I am simply making the point that workers everywhere in whatever part of the word they are from are fully capable of understanding what the socialist project is about. 

I wonder what is keeping them for so long! Perhaps you need to go and tell them in person…You still miss my main point. You only see a single contradiction, i.e. that between labour and capital. In order to get a sense of complexity and variation of contradictions under capitalism see "Socialism or Barbarism: From the 'American Century' to the Crossroads", written by Istvan Mezaros, Chapter 1 under the title of "Capital: The living contradition".

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perhaps, you can tell me more of the socialist position you, yourself, come from.I noticed that you have recommended a number of individual writers but never organisations. Are you a member of an actual socialist/marxist party?Are you involved in your trade union, which is?Are you active in any campaigning groups, which are?Who will you be voting for in your next round of elections? 

I am afraid I would not be able to disclose all the information you are requesting. This is for security reasons, for, as you may know, not all peoples of the world enjoy the same freedom of speech and assembly granted to you.I can tell you this much, that I was a member of Communist Party of Australia for a while. A party which calls itself "Marxist-Leninist". I joined them hoping to learn something from them, and help them learn something, and together we could help other people to raise their level of consciousness. However, that turned to be a chimera!I noticed serious aberrations and shortcomings in their policies and views, all of which stemmed from their incompetence, and, above all, disinterest, in discussions and concepts put forward by Marx and even Lenin. They had effectively preserved all mistakes and shortcomings of Lenin and had done away with his strengths and insightful contributions. I tried to show them where and how some of their views were refuted by Marx or Lenin, but they accused me of "abusing Marx and Lenin quotes".Finally, I renounced my membership when they menaced to sanction me!I work in an Indian IT firm. In India, all trades are unionized, except IT.And in the next elections, most probably I will not vote!

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sepehr, as well you know, a correct interpretation and application of socialist ideas are not a popularity contest. When you argue that only a few Iranians have heard of the WCPI you may well be right, and you may well disagree with them but you should know better than use it as a claim for right or wrong positions. Those who knew of Marx and Engels much less read them were also a handful for much of their lives. Public recognition scarecly validated or invalidated their ideas.

I think you did not get my point over there. I said, that WCPI has never had any links with the real struggles of Iranian people; that they sit in some aloof and safe place and roll out audacious prescriptions for Iranian workers. My point was to tell you, that their analyses has nothing to do with the realities on the ground in Iran. Most other Iranian Marxist groups believe that WCPI is funded by US or Israeli governments, because their analyses are in a glaring concurrence with US and Israeli interests. I do not know whether they do receive any fundings or not, but I can see, based upon what I have read from their analyses, there are certainly grounds for such a suspicion.  

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Also it was either hyperbole or a typo that you seem to think there are thousand of Iranian Marxist groups… i'm sure you meant thousands in  Iranian Marxist groups but we all face the fact that Marxist parties are insignificant and of inconsequencial importance today in all countries. 

You got me wrong here too. Certainly when I say "thousands of Iranian Marxist groups", it is an exaggeration. I intended to highlight the fact that there are so many Iranian Marxist groups and parties, most of whom are either formed or at least currently are entirely located outside Iran. They all call themselves Marxist, but most of them are too incompetent in the scientific side of Marxism. Therefore, it should not be a good idea to seek information from such people, if you wish to ascertain the situation of Iranian society. WCPI is simply one of those groups.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

It seems you fail to appreciate any offer of additional information, since i assume you do not have 100% knowledge despite the considerable amount of reading you have done so i have raised authors i think you may not have studied. You should note i included links Amin's rebuttal to the criticism as proper balance.

I appreciate your links, but I am too busy and could not give you a full response to everything you said or shared with me. I am only picking up on some key issues. Right now if my boss notices what I am doing instead of my assignments, I will be screwed!I have not yet completely gone through that lengthy article from Kliman. That is in my queue for a convenient time. But I already gave you my overall opinion about his works.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As you say in your post "Mondragon and coops are realities, quite palpable and observable. Is that utopian or your insipid and fruitless reiteration of a purely imaginary future?" and i respond by saying as such, we have almost 200 years of hard bitter experience of their successes and failures in all sorts of social situations to make a political and economic judgement. The criticisms of coops are not based upon an imaginary future but history and it isn't it rather Wolff's proposals for WSDEs based on an imaginary future. Mondragon's model has already been falling apart, no crystal ball is required to conclude its failure as an aspiration for the working class.

It is not just about Mondragon. All practical steps and experiments ever taken by anyone, always come under ruthless criticism of that portion of "left" who present themselves as "communists who compromise nothing". In this regard, Lenin wrote: "The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism." (Lenin Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 471)In the same line, I would argue, Wolff's tireless activism has already proven to be most valuable in way of demystifying and breaking the taboo of "communism" and "socialism" in the United States. You may go out and tell people: "socialism means there will be no markets and everything will be free!"And, in reaction, people may scoff, or, perhaps, spit!It takes a lot more than that to achieve tangible results on this path.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Wolff declines to challenge this and a WSDE is just as in much need to make a profit and required to compete with rival workers as current capitalists. He may succeed in making the tread-mill more humane  but humanity will still be engaged in a rat-race. My own criticisms of Wolff which i am sure you will reject have been blogged here a few years ago. 

That is simply not true. Wolff has in some of his speeches alluded to the shortcomings of WSDEs and their relation to capitalist markets. This is not the ultimate solution, but a first step on the long road toward socialism.You are so impatiently rushing to condemn his movement, that is why you cannot follow his arguments correctly.

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

How ought a "national bourgeoise"  by nature be anti-imperialist. This is absurd.  Every single country  in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist.  Imperialism in the modern world springs from capitalism and the national bourgeosie you refer to in the Global South are instrumental in the promotion of capitalism from which they materially benefit. Your notion of anti imperialism is highly selective in that it seems to posit Western capitalism as the only imperialism.  What about the imperialism of China and India that you cite.  Chinese state capitalism has tentacles all over the world as you know. In practice the national bourgeosie cannot but be pro-imperialist if not in their own right then in the subserviance they pay to some greater imperialist power that supports and patronises them

Unfortunately we disagree on the very definition of Imperialism. You are using your own terminology, inconsistent with the definition widely used by others. Marx himself seldom used this term, wherefore at his time it was commonly referred to as "colonialism". Only in the 20th century colonialism turned into a new countenance, to wit, imperialism. Therefore, with this definition in mind, your use of the term, as in "imperialism of China and India", is not only inaccurate, but also a spurious argument used to distract attentions from heinous crimes committed by the real imperialistic powers.How many countries, "pray tell", are invaded, occupied or bombed by China or India?!

robbo203 wrote:

Neither is close to socialism. China is a brutal state capitalist dictatorship which has a low tolerance level for views critical of the status quo

Observe how our sleek-pated Consistorial Counsellor is gradually beginning to show his fox’s ears. (Karl Marx, The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobachter, 1847)

robbo203 wrote:

There is nothing fictitious or irrational about the definition of socialism as a non market non statist global society.  It is what Marxists have traditionally meant by socialism.  Im sure that, come socialism, spatial inequalities will tend to be rapidly overcome through the the global diffusion of advanced technologies when we no longer have the barriers of the market. A consequece of this will be increased divrsification at the local level which will be good. But you are confusing two quite separate things.  It is not the business of socialists to promote capitalist development and ally ourselves with capitalist states and their "national bourgeosie".  If there was a case for that in the mid 19th century, we have long gone past that stage.  The world as a whole already possesses the technological potential to make socialism feasible.  Deferring socialism in order to develop the Global South in the interests of their national bourgeosie strikes me as bein positively reactionary . Not to say unnecessary insofar and to the extent that such development is happening anyway as yourself point out in the case of China and India

How about we just go out there and tell people: "let's all be nice with each other!"… That is how you see the socialst project!And I am not telling anyone to "defer socialism"… If you think building socialism is so unchallenging, "pray proceed"!

robbo203 wrote:

The global village is a metaphor to illustrate the fact that we now possess the means to communicate information instantly from any part of the world to any other part of the world.   The fact that many people still struggle to find food does not preclude the possibility that they might become aware of the fact that whilst they struggle, food is systemtically being destroyed in some parts of the world and farmers are being paid to withdraw land from production to keep up prices. Its a little arrogant to assume that workers or peasants in the Third Word are incapable of drawing socialist consclusions from this.  Is this what you are suggesting?

That reminds me of Marie Antoinette and her famous saying: "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"…

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

I reject completely what seems to lie behind your argument here and which, it seems to me, lends credence to the absurd Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country"

I fear, It shall remain a perpetual conundrum to me, how you concluded this from my statements…

robbo203 wrote:

You dont require as a precondition of socialism,  the symmetrical development everywhere of capitalism up the same level of development as evinced by the most advanced capitalist countries

According to Marx, you do require something like that. Although not exactly as you described it, but more or less so. History has proven Marx to be correct on this. You may dislike it, but that will change nothing.

robbo203 wrote:

and even if you did, how could the "struggle against imperialism" bring that about it? 

By eliminating the greatest obstacle towards that end.

robbo203 wrote:

The newly "liberated" peripheral countries would soon enough fit in with the existing spatial economy of global capitalism with the comprador bourgeoisie of these countries seeking further integration within global capitalism and pimping out their countries as profitable sources of revenue for international investors to take advantage of.

Possible, but not necessarily.

robbo203 wrote:

Stripped down to its bare essentials,  what you are advocating for is that we socialists should seek common cause with these comprador  bourgeoisie in the so called Third World so that they can develop their economies up to a level that pertains in the West.

This, again, is another impregnable conundrum to me. How could a bourgeoisie-comprador be anti-imperialist?! You are confounding that concept with national-bourgeoisie, which by nature ought to be anti-imperialist. As I said, it is possible that a national bourgeoisie may fester into a bourgeoisie-compradore. But that is in case the national bourgeois development turns into a failure. Malaysia and Indonesia are good examples of this failure. But this failure has not happened (YET) with countries such as China and India. Whether these countries will end up having the same fate or not is unknown to us. However, especially in the case of China, that is already a quite remote possibility.

robbo203 wrote:

I reject that completely. In  any case,i t doesnt need the political assistance of socialists to promote this development.  To an extent it is happening already. Look at state capitalist China or other members of the  BRICS community

Please remember, China used to be a rural country with hundreds of millions of illitrate people. Half of its population were wonted to opium. Diseases such as syphilis were extremely common. In short, it used to be what Africa still is today. Why China, and to a much less degree India, managed to develop into functioning and developing societies whilst Africa turned into a conglomerate of failed states with starving populations? The answer lies in "delinking" from imperialism. It happened in China, and to a lesser extent India, but it never happened in Africa.Now which one is closer to socialism? Africa or China? If you really think socialism is a possibility today for African countries, then you must be totally ignoring the consequences of recent massive refugee crisis, from Africa to Europe.

robbo203 wrote:

You forget that capitalism is a global economy and the technological potential for socialism resides at the global level – not at the sub global level as the advocates of socialism in one country contend.  This is because of the integrated nature of the capitalist eocnomy and the complexity of the interdependencies that link every part of the world with every other.  Socialism is necessarily a global alternative to global capitalism.

This absurd statement is the result of your vague, irrational and fictitious definition of socialism. Are you envisaging global socialism as a world where Africa continues to export minerals, Middle East continues to export crude oil, Malaysia continues to export palm oil, etc; and all of them import everything else from industrial countries? Or is it going to be based on self-sufficient communes? You need to seriously revise your vision of socialism.

robbo203 wrote:

We aready have the global technolgical potential to establish socialism.  What we lack is the global working class consciousness to make that a reality.  Its is absolute rubbish to suggest that in today's interconnected global village this consciousness cannot transcend national boundaries or that we ought not to make the effort to do this on some spurious mechanistic pretext that unless a McDonalds fast food outlet is installed on very street corner of every town in the continent in Africa, we can't have world socialism.  .

What is rubbish is the idea of "global village". What village? While you fathom about how to build socialism, on the other side of the world many people are struggling to find some food to survive until tomorrow.How did you conclude that McDonald part from my statements is yet another mystery. Historically McDonald has been an icon of imperialism. As, e.g., in the famous statement that McDonald restaurants ought to follow McDonald Douglas bombers. I think I was clear on the anti-imperialism part…

robbo203 wrote:

This is to sell your soul to those self same comprador bourgeosie of the Global South who must be rubbing their hands at the prospect of ripping  off their local populatons. having thrown off the shackles of what you call "imperialism ", only to reinforce that very thing, by opening up their markets to the Multinationals and co.

Comprador bourgeoisie is what is formed by, and what reinforces imperialist domination of metropole. You should clarify these key concepts in your mind.

[Sepehr]

robbo203 wrote:

Sepehr, this is a silly argument. How on earth do you  infer from the claim that it is capitalism not imperialism that we should focus our efforts  upon removing, that  this is somehow a "pro-imperialist stance"? No one here is supporting imperialism in any way shape or form.  What we are saying is that you cannot separate imperialism from capitalism and that the roots of  the former are to be found in the latter. Every single nation state on this planet – even the little ones – are latently or manifestly imperialist because every single one of them is locked into a system of global capitalism and is driven by a dynamic that is indisputably capitalist.

I see in your statement a disappointing lag on the principles of dialectical materialism. It would be futile if I repeat, time and again, how Marx prioritized issues other than capitalism over the course of his political chronology. Having already mentioned all necessary references to Marx, allow me to break my argument down to the most simplistic narrative I may know!In order to conquer capitalism, you need, first and foremost, developed societies. Asymmetric development on the global stage, i.e. developed societies on the one side and under-developed societies on the other, will result in crushing any attempt of transcendence into socialism in the developed side; and there would be no possibility for development on the under-developed side in the first place. Imperialism, by definition, is a continuous and effective force which actively prevents all attempts of development on the under-developed side of the world, hence eliminating the possibility of socialism throughout the entire world.If you are serious in your project of socialism, you must first remove this mischievous obstacle off of the way. Pure and simple… Remember these two important preconditions for any successful socialist revolution:1- Socialism can only be built where productive forces of society have matured to the highest level of socialization and productivity.2- Socialist revolution must take place in several countries simultaneously. Imperialism preempts on both points. Now go ahead and conquer capitalism without first taking any measures against imperialism. Do it if you can!…

[Sepehr]

Yes I am well aware of that party and yes, I (along with thousands of other Iranian Marxist groups!) reject their position. This does not mean that I am palliating the Iranian ruling theocracy. Basically I have not seen a single Iranian political group or party who would vindicate Iranian theocracy, except of course the theocracy itself. The Iranian Workers Communist Party holds positions and views very similar to those of yours. Please be aware that they have never had any links to the real struggles going on in Iran. They are sitting somewhere safe in UK or US and roll out audacious prescriptions for Iranian workers! Honestly the number of people inside Iran who might have heard their name would not exceed more than two digits… I have already seen all of those criticisms about Amin, and many others too. What are you trying to prove? That other points of view do exist?! I can point you to countless criticisms, e.g. those of Friedrich Von Hayek or Milton Friedman… Among the left I could name Slavoj Gigek. If you read his analysis, in a purely idealistic realm it may make some sense, but in real world it is utter bosh. Or others, such as Bill Warren, Antonio Negri, Alan Woods, etc. etc., all of whom contending to be completely fluent on all concepts of Marxism. However, their analyses has no sense when evaluated against realities and empirical, data and this is precisely why their analyses are not Marxian in the proper sense of the word. Mondragon and coops are realities, quite palpable and observable. Is that utopian or your insipid and fruitless reiteration of a purely imaginary future? As I mentioned several times earlier, Marx, too, endorsed many things you would call non-socialist and bashed many who called themselves socialists.

[Sepehr]

I am leaving this link only for your reference. "Contemporary Imperialism" by Samir Amin:http://monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/contemporary-imperialism/ And this one which perfectly explains what I have experienced with my flesh and bone, having lived in an Islamic Republic for decades. "Political Islam in the Service of Imperialism", again by Samir Amin.http://monthlyreview.org/2007/12/01/political-islam-in-the-service-of-imperialism/ Just for the record, many orthodox Leninists hate Amin's analysis.

[Sepehr]

I will not say anything about your lengthy analysis, though I see many lethal errors in it. In many cases I have already provided the proper answer. and in many other cases you can dig it out yourself. Resenick might have had that extra time in his death bed, but I need to accomplish my other everyday businesses. I may only say this: today one ought to be blind to deny the existence of monopoly and to suggest that markets and competition are what determines prices! This is exactly the nonsense that is taught in academic text books. But, nay, even a blind man could notice how far from truth that is. Take the price of oil for a simple example. Despite the massive drop in oil prices, mass of the people still have to pay comparatively high prices for petrol, transportation, etc. Of course there is competition among producers of that raw material, but prices of finished product (i.e. petrol, transportation, etc.) are determined monopolistically and oligopolistically. Unless, of course, if you want to resort to the usual libertarian prattle, saying that "prices are not going down because of government taxation"!

alanjjohnstone wrote:

A few quick observation on your reply, Sepehr, and they are brief[…]As regards the bribe reference you transposed the " apostrophes" …i don't accept we are bribed or that we are an aristocracy of labour. This is the conclusion i accuse those who accepts Lenin. I think one wag when explained Lenin's implication that the Western worker is bought off by the British Empire, answered, "just tell me which amount of my wages is and i will gladly give it back."…I don't readily dismiss the class struggle in North America or Europe as being contributory factor to concessions and compromises made by the ruling class and often it was merely the fear of such a struggle that brought such great gains such as the 1945 British Welfare State when all the bourgeois parties Tories Liberals and Labour politicians joined together because they did not seek a repeat of 1919 and the possibility of revolution arising But I think it is also a sign of the current weakness of unions in safeguarding decent wages and conditions in the US that outsourced jobs are now returning to some degree…Where the Southern red 'right to work' states are indeed at Third World levels these days  Without dwelling upon my personal circumstances, i have been a very close observer of the daily struggle of people in the developing countries, i need only open the door and look out and talk with my neighbours to understand what they face, so in the politest of ways and with no dis-respect…there is no need to teach your granny to suck eggs, as the saying goesI am well aware of varying living standards between nations but of course i am also very painfully aware of the existence of a yawning wealth gap within nations and how oligarchs versus plutocrats use people as political pawnsWe do possess differing ideas on Marx, i think. Too far apart to be compatible. Perhaps your views are right. Perhaps mine may be. But one thing i hope we both agree upon is that when we put our repective ideas to our fellow workers, it is they who will decide who they think is right and that no intelligensia substitutes itself for them by declaring the correct party line.    

You might have spoken with your neighbours, but I have lived half of my life in that misery. There was once a nationalist (and not even Marxist) government which was democratically ellected in Iran. That government decided, in order to develop Iran from a poor, rural and backward country, towards an industrial and advanced society, they had to nationalize oil industry. British and American imperialists deemed that decision to be so extravagant, that they decided to orchestrate a coup and topple the Iranian democratic government. Since then, Iran has never been a democratic country again, let alone socialist! As the result of its US-imposed lumpen-development, today there are 20 million unemployed people in that country, total population being 75 million. The situation in Iran is so complicated that your reductionist analysis quickly pales out once you start to go into details of it.You need not to be a Leninist to see the reality of Imperialism. It is so obvious a reality that even many right-wing conservatives acknowledge it. See the book "The Shock Doctrine" written by Naomi Klein to get a glimpse of what imperialism indeed has done.I am not saying that Lenin's analysis was so perfect and flawless, but at least he saw the importance of imperialism. For an up-to-date analysis of capitalism, see the recent article by Prabhat Patnaik, entitled "Capitalism and Its Current Crisis". Patnaik is an Indian economist and therefore has got first hand knowledge of exigencies in the Third World countries.http://monthlyreview.org/2016/01/01/capitalism-and-its-current-crisis/ Our positions are not merely two different approaches for the same cause. By cutting the critique of imperialism and Marx's position on nationalism, away from Marxism, you are effectively turning it into a sterile and harmless creature. It is therefore no surprise that the sharp edge of your criticism is directed toward those who in fact are pushing the vehicle of change, and that includes Wolff too.

[Sepehr]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

However, whatever their views on nationalism, it has to be said that it is a repugnant ideology as vile as racism.

That argument suits perfectly to your pro-imperialist stance, noticing that agnosticism is practically no different than pro-imperialism; the former, perhaps, being even more perilous than the latter.In other words, whatever your views on imperialism, it has to be said that it is as repugnant and vile as racism.

[Sepehr]

I will not waste my time responding to those who obviously know nothing more than reiterating their dogmatic views, and therefore do not seek to learn the slightest point. However, forasmuch as alanjjohnstone seems to be at least honest in pursuing a discussion, I am providing my feedback here. But even in that case, I have no choice but to present my arguments with utmost brevity, for each single point is the subject of several books, and I neither have the time nor the intention of doing so.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marx's analysis of capitalism, as I read it, was that the workers movement would first triumph in the economically advanced parts of the world, not in a relatively backward economic area like Russia.

That was the position of earlier Marx. As Marx proceeded with his inquiry and developed profounder insights, this position of his entirely changed: "My answer is that, thanks to the unique combination of circumstances in Russia, the rural commune, which is still established on a national scale, may gradually shake off its primitive characteristics and directly develop as an element of collective production on a national scale. Precisely because it is contemporaneous with capitalist production, the rural commune may appropriate all its positive achievements without undergoing its [terrible] frightful vicissitudes. Russia does not live in isolation from the modern world, and nor has it fallen prey, like the East Indies, to a conquering foreign power.Should the Russian admirers of the capitalist system deny that such a development is theoretically possible, then I would ask them the following question. Did Russia have to undergo a long Western-style incubation of mechanical industry before it could make use of machinery, steamships, railways, etc.? Let them also explain how they managed to introduce, in the twinkling of an eye, that whole machinery of exchange (banks, credit companies, etc.) which was the work of centuries in the West."(Marx correspondence to Zasulich, The First Draft, February/March 1881) This is not the only evidence of this transformation of the mature Marx. I am only giving you a hint so you could go and dig the rest of it out.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Russia was the first country to escape from the domination of the Western capitalist countries

The first one was Japan, not Russia. While the rest of the world was mired with adverse effects of imperialism on their natural development, Japan was the first country to escape that straighjacket and was therefore able to develop independently. The Russian revolution of 1917, and later the Chinese revolution, were both successful in "delinking" from the global economy. As a result both became great powers.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Playing the anti -imperialist card meant appealing to the "toiling masses" of Asia not to establish socialism but to carry out their own anti-imperialist revolutions.

Do you really believe there was a socialist revolution on agenda of "toiling masses" of Asia?! You must read some of the enlightening writings of Marx on the effects of colonialism in Asian countries. And again I am referring to late Marx, when he had clearly done away with the crude idea of "Asiatic mode of production". Many of these workd have only recently become available to us, i.e. even Lenin could not read them.But even beside that, you are refuting your earlier position, which by the way you attributed to Marx, but in fact was more seriously taken up by Stalinists and Trotskyites. If socialism could only be achieved in most advanced countries, how could you expect "toiling masses of Asia" to build socialism? Stalinists (e.g. in India, Pakistan, Iran or some other countries) would argue through expediation of capitalist development, which is only possible after smiting imperialist meddlers. Some Trotskyites would say by supporting Imperialist takeover, which is nothing but the pioneer of capitalism.Marx stood on an entirely different position on this issue. As you can see in his above statement, when he says: "Russia does not live in isolation from the modern world, and nor has it fallen prey, like the East Indies, to a conquering foreign power", it is clear that he saw the possibility of a transition into socialism without passing through capitalism. But that possibility is on the condition of that society having not fallen pray to a conquering foreign power. Therefore, again Imperialism could prevent such a transition. Hence why the issue of imperialism ascends to a higher priority.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lenin's theory of imperialism pitted the working class of undeveloped countries against that of the developed ones.

You got the point entirely upside down here. It was not Lenin's theory which pitted workers of the undeveloped countries against that of the developed ones. Quite contrary, it was imperialism which lined up proletarians of developed countries behind their bourgeoisie in plundering undeveloped countries.Besides, speaking about "working class of undeveloped countries" is in many cases entirely pointless, for societies of many of these countries were, and some even still are, dominated with pre-capitalist modes of production, in which, a proletariat is not yet even formed. This is precisely the point about imperialism. It was, and in many cases still is, a conscious and continuous effort to prevent these countries from entering into an industrial revolution. E.g. Saudi Arabia, a country which exports a single commodity, namely oil, and imports everything else. Most of its workers are imported from other countries and have no rights in that country. Is it a surprise that Saudi Arabia is still maintaining the most primitive forms of barbarism? No suffrage, no women rights, no civil rights, no human rights, etc. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lenin argued in ‘Imperialism – Highest Stage of Capitalism’ that, through a process which had been completed by the turn of the century, capitalism had changed its character. Industrial capital and bank capital had merged into finance capital, and competitive capitalism had given way to monopoly capitalism in which trusts, cartels and other monopolistic arrangements had come to dominate production. Faced with falling profits from investments at home, these monopolies were under economic pressure to export capital and invest it in the economically backward parts of the world where higher than normal profits could be made. Hence, Lenin went on, the struggle by the most advanced industrial countries to secure colonies where such "super-profits" could be made.

That is not even the gist of story. The discussion of monopoly capitalism is a very huge and immensely important one. For the starter, please see "Finance Capital" written by Rudolf Hilferding in 1909. That will give you a good understanding of cartels, trusts, stock markets and corporations, definitely a must read for any contending Marxist. But all analyses of Lenin, Hilferding and Bucharin belong to the outset of monopoly capitalism. Samir Amin, and some others, argue that after the 1970s, capitalism has undergone into another qualitative change. Amin refers to monopoly capitalism today as "Generalized Monopoly Capitalism", thus emphasizing on its qualiative change by giving it a new name. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I would suggest that his analysis is out of date when applied to the current situation.

Partially yes, but not entirely. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The Labour Aristocracy theory had the political purpose of enabling the Bolsheviks to argue for the workers in the colonies to form united fronts with their local ruling classes against Imperialism. This in turn had the aim of dividing the working class internationally, and turning it into cannon fodder for capitalist war. Lenin's expanded theory made the struggle in the world not one between an international working class and an international capitalist class, but between imperialist and anti—imperialist states. The international class struggle which socialism preached was replaced by a doctrine which preached an international struggle between states.

I have already shown Marx's position on subjugation of some nations by other nations. If you mean anti-imperialism is in opposition with socialism, then you are in effect contending that Marx was not a socialist. Please refer to my last comment to see why "internationalism" cannot be in the forefront of a socialist agenda and instead independence must occupy that position. And please do not confound this independence with those promoted by the very same imperialists! When I say independece, I mean independence of a people which is systematically and structurally kept backward under yoke of imperialism.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marx and Engels had little to say on the subject of imperialism.

That is simply not true. As I mentioned several times earlier, many manuscripts of Marx have only recently been published and many are yet to be published. What you say is outdated. It might have been the case at Lenin's time, but certainly not today. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marx doesn't make too much of this counter-tendency to the Falling Rate of Profit.

Of course. Capital does not study monopoly capitalism. It is mainly focused on competition capitalism. The first two chapters do not even build upon real markets of that time. Marx imposed some premises on his analysis, and those premises were taken from what classical political economists argued was a perfect market system. Marx's primary intention was to show that those premises do not lead to the prosperous society promised by political economists. Some Marxists, however, take those arguments of Marx too literally and believe markets behaved (and even still do!) exactly in the same ways that Marx had assumed in his analysis. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 If "First World" workers have been "bribed", that is because they have forced the bosses to bribe them.

Oh really?! Then how come only after US industries began to outsource their production to other countries (Mexico, Chine, etc.), American workers' wages stopped rising? How can you "force you boss" to bribe you, if there are no industries and no bosses? As I expected, your views are too Euro-centric and entirely baseless when it comes to the "Third World" countries. In this you share the ultra-right-wing creed of "You are responsible!… it's your choice!… You are lazy!…"

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Marxian economics does not measure the level of exploitation by how high or low wages are but by reference to the amount of surplus value produced as compared with the amount of wages paid, whether high or low. By this measure the workers of the advanced countries were more exploited than those of the colonies, despite their higher wages, because they produced more profits per worker. Lenin failed to understand why different rates of wages prevail in different countries. According to him, wages are higher in imperialist countries because the capitalists there bribe their workers out of the superprofits which they earn from exploiting the subjugated countries.

Had you lived in one of those Third Wold countries, working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, with no annual or sick leave, with a wage which could hardly cover your accomodation costs, thus being forced to send your children to work, or to live with your parents albeit being married and having children, etc.; and all of these aside, being denied of receiving your meagre salary for an unknown span of time (1 month, or 2, or 3, or 6, or 8, …), you would definitely have developed a different view on this issue! Notice that the same worker, once successfully moved from the Third World country to a First World country, will receive much higher wages. And these workers often prefer the First World country also because they do not have to work as strenuously as they did in the Third World country. E.g. Many multi-national corporations, such as IT firms, maintain part of their production in countries were labour is cheap. Somtimes some of their employees will have to go on mission to a more advanced country. They will receive much higher wages upon arrival, in par with the prevailing wage rate in the country of destination. Thus the same worker with the same productivity will receive higher or lower wages, solely based on his geographic whereabouts.

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Lenin's theory of imperialism had contained the seeds of such a shameful outcome from the start as it made the most significant struggle at world level not the class struggle but the struggle between states, between so-called anti— imperialist and progressive states and so— called imperialist and reactionary states. This was a dangerous diversion from the class struggle and led to workers supporting the killing in wars of other workers in the interest of one or other state and its ruling class.

You remind me of the adage "more catholic than pope". Based on your reasoning, Marx, too, was a shameless bastard who betrayed the inevitable socialist revolution by bringing up such astray ideas as nationalism, independence, freedom of speech and so forth. I suggest instead of proposing a new title to professor Wolff, you may rather wish to choose a different title for yourselves, something other than Marxist. Or perhaps not, for, as Marx famously said, he himself was not a Marxist! (Engels, Letter to Bernstein, 1882)

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Anti-imperialism is a doctrine long used by capitalists in relatively weak countries to try and pursue their own ends.We reject nationalism as anti-working class because it has always tied the proletariat to its class enemy and divided it amongst itself: the workers have no country. Anti-imperialist nationalism is the ideology of an actual or aspirant capitalist class that seeks the way to its own independent state blocked by imperialism and therefore must mobilize the masses to help break down this obstacle.

This is what I meant when I said earlier about the common problem of some Marxists: The inability to see the variety of contradictions within the system of capitalism and thus always reducing everything down to a single and simple contradiction, namely, the contradiction between labour and capital. This is a crude analysis does not conform with Marx's dialectical method.Whether you like it or not, the consequence of your doctrine is to sabotage all attempts of independent development, thus helping imperialist powers to continue their embezzlement on those countries.If you have developed a dogmatic faith on this position, there is nothing I could further do here. But if you are indeed curious, I would suggest you to read "Beyond Capital" as I mentioned earlier. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Successful anti-imperialism becomes imperialism.

Not at all. That would be an unsuccessful anti-imperialism, such as the one experienced in Iran. A successful one will expand productive powers of the native society and will pave the way for the transition into socialism. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Israel was founded in a national struggle against the British Empire.

I'm afraid that could not be any farther from truth. 

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What may have been right in the 19thCentury for Marx and Engels, may not now be the right choice in this century under changed circumstances. What was perhaps provident for backward Russia in the eyes of Lenin or Trotsky need not be applicable or advisable for the rest of us. 

It is true that the entire material world, including human societies, are constantly in motion and thus circumstances change all the time. Major contradictions may turn into minor ones and erstwhile minor ones may turn into major ones. But 2 plus 2 was equal to 4 back then, and it still is equal to the same number. What was true back then for, say, Russia, may be true today for some Latin American countries. I have no contention in that. It is Marx' method which is important. Denial of imperialism is completely violates his method and suits to right-wing neo-conservative narratives.

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have to stick to my guns and disagree, despite your interesting citation, sepehr.You do not comment upon my point that Marx’s support for nationalism was not unconditional.

 One of the main features of Marx's method is the fact that all of its elements are interconnected. Therefore a seemingly minor error in one place will have massive ripple effects in all directions. I say this because I believe your position on internationalism, nationalism and value theory are interconnected. Revision in one area will necessitate revisions in all other areas. In the same correspondence of 1882 to Kautsky, Marx says: "One of the real tasks of the Revolution of 1848 – and the real, and not illusory tasks of a revolution are always solved as a consequence of this revolution – was the constitution of the suppressed and scattered nationalities of Central Europe, provided they were at all viable and provided especially that they were ripe for independence." You should ask yourself, what does he mean when he says "ripe for independence"? How does this relate to the concept of communes? What are communes? What are nations? Will there be no such thing as a nation-state under communism? Are nation-states a necessary stage towards formation of communes? Historically, peoples of all localities sustained their lives independent of the rest of the world. Today, however, the globalized economic system, under the command of the World Bank and IMF, pushes nations toward specialization in production of a single commodity for the world market. Thus, one country is appointed to production of coffe, the other the production of oil, etc. It is only within metropole countries that we still see a diversity of production, although that too is under attack. As a result, a drop in demand for coffee, oil, etc. could result in horrendous famines for whole populations. That is only one problem with this globalized economic system. The irrational and wasteful use of energy and other natural resources to bring about the transportation system necessary for such a globalized system, the displacement of people in great numbers, either in the form of immigrants, refugees or under temporary worker visas, are some of its other issues.Not all the ills and miseries of capitalism are consequences of the monetary system. Even in your imagined value-free system many of existing issues could persist and even exacerbate. The reproduction of the inequality and asymmetric development on the global scale is one instance. Suppose you are living in a value free-society where all fruits of labour are granted gratis. Furthermore, suppose that this value-free society has come about after a succession of revolutions throughout the world, which have transformed the existing globalized economy, with all of its asymmetries, into your value-free system. Are you going to allow freedom of movement to the people or are you going to chain them to their geographic localities? The latter choice would refute your "internationalism". Therefore, with the former being your only choice, people would naturally prefer to move from under-developed regions and localities to the more developed regions. Hence a refugee crisis hitherto unseen!It is easy to sit in a library and reiterate sacred principles of socialism. But that will have no effect on the real world, at least not in a progressive sense. Marx proceeds to say:"Polish socialists who do not place the liberation of their country at the head of their programme, appear to me as would German socialists who do not demand first and foremost repeal of the socialist law, freedom of the press, association and assembly. In order to be able to fight one needs first a soil to stand on, air, light and space. Otherwise all is idle chatter." We all know whence these principles come: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, association and assembly, etc. These are liberal principles. These are originally, and even today, promoted by bourgeois intellectuals and bulletins. Marx had his own criticism of these principles as insufficient to do what they promise they would do. Nevertheless, instead of closing his eyes and shouting "What do we want?! Socialism! When do we want it?! Now!", he puts those bourgeois principles as the first and foremost demands. Lenin gives a full answer to Rosa Luxemburg regarding her criticism of Marx. It is an interesting piece and I would recommend you to see it. But, therein an interesting point is cited from Marx, to which I should like to bring your attention: "However, it so happened that the English working class fell under the influence of the liberals for a fairly long time, became an appendage to the liberals, and by adopting a liberal-labour policy left itself leaderless. The bourgeois liberation movement in Ireland grew stronger and assumed revolutionary forms. Marx reconsidered his view and corrected it. “What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another.” The English working class will never be free until Ireland is freed from the English yoke. Reaction in England is strengthened and fostered by the enslavement of Ireland (just as reaction in Russia is fostered by her enslavement of a number of nations!)."(Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination, Chapter 8: The Utopian Karl Marx and the Practical Rosa Luxemburg) As you can see, Lenin is quoting this from Marx: "What a misfortune it is for a nation to have subjugated another."Notice, this misfortune is for the subjugator nation, not the subjugated. This goes back to the same question Marx had raised in his correspondence with Engels: "For us, the difficult question is this: on the Continent revolution is imminent and will, moreover, instantly assume a socialist character. Will it not necessarily be crushed in this little corner of the earth, since the movement of bourgeois society is still, in the ascendant over a far greater area?" There is no denying that Marx did not view nationalism and the right for self determination as a sacred or god-given right. His nationalism fits into his historical materialism and his vision for a transition into socialism. This is the immensely important point which ought to be understood properly. When Marx says "In order to be able to fight one needs first a soil to stand on, air, light and space", it reminds me of the Palestinian issue, or, as just another example, the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.On the other side, it is important to see what we target to achieve from these nationalist movements. Today Iraq is in the process of getting teared into three separate countries. The question is, will that enervate US imperialism, or will it bolster that? Same question about Tibetan separatists in China. A true Marxist must be able to discern major and minor contradictions and choose a practical and effective strategy towards tangible and meaningful goals.I have to stop here, because this will unleash another protracted discussion.For a better understanding of asymmetric development and imperialism, see "The Political Economy of Growth" by Paul Baran, and also many recent writings of Samir Amin, e.g. "Contemporary Imperialism".

[Sepehr]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Sepehr, How do you rate Andrew Kliman as a Marxist teacher? I believe he engaged in some polemics with Wolff.  He fairly recently addressed a meeting of this Party which you can watch herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/andrew-kliman-failure-capitalist-production-pt1http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/andrew-kliman-failure-capitalist-production-pt2Having read a fair amount on Mondragon Co-op, I think i must agree with you that Wolff's endorsement of that model in an over-simplification using it more as a propaganda piece for WSDEs by softening his criticisms of Mondragon.  Sepehr, another question on another Marxist economist. What do you think of  Paul Mattick's (and now his son Paul Jnr's) contribution to Marxist economic interpretation, Paul Snr. was very critical of Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran's analysis. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1966/monopoly-capital.htm

 There is a common problem among many people who give themselves the Marxist title. That problem is the inability to see the variety of contradictions within the system of capitalism. Those who always reduce everything down to the irreducible contradiction of labour and capital, fail to comprehend Marx's dialectical method and one way or another end up ossifying the status-quo. As, e.g. a ludicrous prescription given by some so called "Marxists" who argue the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a conflict between Israeli bourgeoisie and Hamas bourgeoisie… therefore calling Palestinian workers to fight Hamas instead of Israeli occupiers! While this is just an example, my intention is to show how this reductionism results into lip-servicing for imperialism and crushing genuine struggles for emancipation. Thence comes the opposition against Paul Sweezy, Harry Magdoff and others and their critical analysis. I would again recommend Mezaros, for he explains these contradictions in great detail.

[Author]

Posts