Re: AUT: report from Argentina

["cercle social" <cerclesocial@xxxxxxxxxx>]

As Kautsky ghost raise again in the discusson, I send you a small note about
Ultra-Imperialism question, writen after the lats questions I asked on
Aut-Op-Sy about U-I. It has been first written in french for a discussion
within International discussion network.
Nico

-----------------
Kautsky's ghost, Some questions on Ultra-imperialism and Empire

I - Ultra-Imperialism
Once a while, when someone speak about Globalisation, Empire, World state
institutions and so on, the Kautsky's Ghost raise from the Grave. The best
known renegade - after Judas - take with him another plague, and its name is
Ultra-imperialism. What do we know about this calamity ? A few quotes from
Lenin, prophet in a single country. Theses quotes, widely diffused, are
based upon an article published in 1915 in Der Neue Zeit, titled "Zwei
Schritte zum Umlernen" (Two Steps to Unlearn). This article seems not have
been translated in French, nor in English, and if there were, there's no
available copy ; at least, no one refers it, and my investigations about
this leads to only one conclusion : people who speak about ultra-imperialism
rarely read Kautsky article. As Lenin anathema on Ultra-imperialism was
fulminated after his rupture with its traitor master, and brandish as a
proof of its felony, we're exactly in the same situation as study of ancient
and defeated Christian sects we know only by Churches Fathers. So the real
creator of Ultra-Imperialism concept as we know it is Lenin himself.

A convinced Marxist-Leninist may still, with the serious and the ridiculous
of such people, use it as a concept or, more likely, like an insult to
discards adversity (such as petty-bourgeois, economists, ultra-leftist and
so on). But it's somewhat funny that even non-Leninist use it in the same
motive.

The few texts in which Lenin describes Ultra-Imperialism are unclear, made
of messy quotes from Kautsky. In "The failure of IInd International" (1915),
Lenin explain that U-I is not something already realized, but an alternative
fort the end of war:

1° Strengthen of class contradictions, national hates between finance
capitalist, arms race, decadency of capitalism and course to WWII.

Or,

2° Diminution of customs taxes, protectionism, and capital exportation ;
tendency to disarmament ; melting between capitalists of various countries,
leading to a world exploitation by an united finance capital.

In others texts, Lenin give no others elements about Ultra-Imperialism, and
repeat what he already explain, with the same quotes. In "Imperialism and
the split in Socialism", he associates "United States of Europe" slogan to
Ultra-Imperialism, and Trotsky to Kautsky. we're in 1916. The same
"Ultra-Imperialist" slogan was adopted by Komintern in 1923!

The first branch of the Lenin U-I alternative was more or less realized, and
effectively lead to WWII. But it's interesting that some parts of the second
branch were also more or less realized after WWII : decreasing of customs
taxes (more than 90 %) and protectionism, treaties about nuclear weapons,
melting of capitalists into a transnational capitalist class (notably in
finance sector). Not that U-I is realized just as Lenin thought it, but some
tendencies that could be felt in capitalism development are now reality. So,
it's vision of afterwar alternative was somewhat not so bad, but both
branches developed one after another. And with the second one, there was no
WWIII, even if there was the Cold War, and if decolonisation fights may be
local aspects of low intensity WWIII. So. let up Kautsky's ghost turns back
to his grave, Lenin's mummy to his sarcophagi,  and discuss about current
questions.



II - Empire
One of the most important aspects of the post WWII capitalism is the
multiplication of international structures, more or less under US control -
but not exclusively - as UNO, IMF, WB, WTO and so on. We can discuss of
their effective role and so on, but not ignore their importance in nowadays
capitalism. That's why I'm rather surprised when Sander write : "The weight
of the past, the ruthless traditions of all ruling classes continue to live
on in the capitalist class and capitals continue to be national, even as
they operate more and more globally - no global structures of political
power have as yet replaced the nation-state nor are they emerging." (in "Why
was there (so far) no third World War?", part 1). Although Sander recognizes
(in part 2) that inter-imperialist conflict do not play a major role today
in global scale - even if it still run in regional scale, between wanabe
regional leaders - he seems to not interest in theses global institutions.

I tend to agree on the fact that "global" is often synonym to
 "US-controlled", and this is a big problem in Negri & Hardt's Empire is
that they seems to consider Empire as already realized - what they do not
proof - and they consider Empire as really global, as disconnected from US
domination, what's should also be proved from a more consistent way. What's
true is the progressive transfer of sovereignty from "nation" states to an
higher level. When an European minister is being asked something, he almost
always answers : I can't do it, it must be treated at EU level. When an
African minister is being asked something, he almost always answers : I can'
t do it, it's the IMF exigency. Even if there is a part of hypocrisy, it's
somewhat real : the great political decisions are not local, but continental
or global. That's the background of Empire. So, for the discussion on
Imperialism and Empire, I would suggest to try answer theses three questions
:

1° Is there a tendency to globalisation of state, by transfer of former
"sovereignty" of states ?

2° What's the link between "globalisation" and "US domination" ? Between
Imperialism and Empire ?

3° What role play global institutions (IMF, UNO and so on) in nowadays phase
of capitalism ?

 In various texts, now gathered in "Left hand of globalisation" pamphlet (in
French, but most texts also exist in English), I suggested two things about
theses questions, in a more dialectic view:

            1° Neoliberalism, as ideology and practice of the capitalist
movement, has for objective to destroy institutions linked to former phase
of capitalism - providence-state and high level of public debt. But
Neoreformism (left ideology) adapts itself to global capital, as a
replacement ideology supporting the creation of global welfare institutions
and global taxes. It will probably succeed to neoliberalism, as dominant
ideology, when its job will be done.

            2°  One of the main problem for capitalism today is public debt.
Money was lend as an anticipation of a future production that realized at a
sufficient level - so this money exists nowhere. All states are indebted and
try to manage policies of debt reduction (Maastricht criterion in Europe,
welfare eradication in US, IMF plan in almost all countries) and war against
fiscal evasion.

Note that first aspect leads to a question posed under various way by Negri
& Hardt, and by our friends of Robin Goodfellow [french communist group from
bordiguits tradition], about democracy. For RGF,
this question is still posed at "national" level - and they seems to think
about China, one fifth of humanity - because democracy is a presupposition
for communist revolution. This is just, as democracy can't resume to
parliamentarism, but includes possibilities of reunions and demonstration,
freedom of press, and so on ; in authoritarian countries like China, as it
was for Spain, Portugal, Poland or Iran, worker movement is not dissociable
to democratic movement, even if communist movement should take over
democracy (more on this in an almost finished pamphlet, "A society without
exploitation"). Negri & Hardt pose the democratic question directly as the
global level, and predicts more or less than next revolution will be for
global democracy. Jacques Wajnsztejn [from Critical Times, french autonomus
marxists review coming from the same origins than Communist Theory, see
Aufheben last number]
IDN, in a critic of Empire, ended by "550 pages to conclude for democracy."
. But even if Negri has expurged his communism form Leninism and
left-nationalism, he has not become an "ultraleftist". The question, for us,
is not : Do we want a global democratic revolution?, but Will there be a
global democratic revolution ?, and What role will communist movement in
such a revolution?

The second aspect (public debt) is central today, as Argentina revolt
demonstrate it. If the "abolition of debt" proposed by social-democracy and
catholic church is rather suspect - but a way of recognize that capitalism
knows a debt crisis and should find a radical solution, even for its
reformists salvers - the slogan 'this debt isn't our, we won't pay state
debt" is correct, as a practical critic of state. It lead us to another
aspect : as Imperialism / Empire / Globalisation group of question is always
an exploration of Private capital / State links, shouldn't we discuss more
precisely on State nature, and, most of all, about "public money" question?



Nico





     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---