Re: Imperialism and democracy

[Philip Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Nestor on the question of imperialist preference.

I would say, however, that the preferences are somewhat fluid depending on
the global situation.  During the period of the Cold War and national
liberation struggles after WW2, dictatorships in the Third World were
necessary for the imperialists to maintain control.  There simply wasn't
much room for them to manoeuvre.  Since the end of the Cold War and the
collapse of (most) national liberation movements, imperiaism no longer
needs these dictatorships.  Moreover, the dictatorships have often become
an actual obstacle as they siphon off huge amounts of surplus-value and,
from time to time, actually get in the way of IMF, World Bank, WTO etc
diktats.  So, more inclusive and democratic regimes are the preference of
imperialism today.

Now, Lou Paulsen, argues:
>In any case, my point was more basic: it was that in a period of war and
>crisis, the arrangements which imperialism "likes" may not be practical.
>Look at Pakistan as an example.  The "necessities of the core" at the moment
>involve a war which the people do not want.  If Pakistan had a "formal
>democracy", there would be great danger of them denying the U.S. the use of
>its land, air, and bases.  But can the U.S. "directly militarily occupy"
>Pakistan??  I don't think so.  The Musharraf dictatorship may not be what
>the U.S. "likes best", but it is necessary -today-.  (Just as, domestically,
>the imperialists may turn to fascism, not because they prefer it, but
>because it's necessary.)


I disagree quite fundamentally with this.  A formal democracy in Pakistan
would make it even easier for the US to use bases there.  Lou is equating
formal democracy with governments following public opinion.  The two,
however, do not usually follow.  A democratic regime in Pakistan right now
would probably be even more vulnerable to US pressure than the military
dictatorship is.  For instance, a formal democracy would be much more able
to contain public opinion than what the dictatorship is.  It would probably
also be able to get away with using *more violence* against
anti-imperialist protesters than the Musharraf military regime can.

A good comparison would be Argentina under Galtieri and then under
Alfonsin.  It's not hard to see who the imperialists came to prefer there
or which was the better vehicle for carrying out imperialist diktats in the
1980s.  Namely, Alfonsin!

Basically, I think Lou underestimates the significance of changes in
imperialist policy since the end of the Cold War and also underestimates
the way in which formal democracy in the Third World can be, and often is,
a far better insurer and manager of imperialist interests - and a better
means of containing dissent - than decrepit and decayed and corrupt old
military dictatorships.

Philip Ferguson












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