Re: [Marxism] What is a subimperialist?

["Renato Pompeu" <renatopompeu@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: <hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 10:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] What is a subimperialist?


> Firstly, thanks to Renato P & to Nestor for picking up the question.
> Subsidiaries:
> 1) Recommendations of web-links for Ruy Mauro Marini? Recommendations for
books (English?) by him - what is the definitive volume ['Ars Long, vita
brevis']?
I am afraid that, if you use Google to search for Ruy Mauro Marini, you will
find only texts in Spanish and Portuguese.
>
> 2) The Comintern used the term "a minor partner of imperialism", Renato,
to depict the 'white' colonial implants in Canada; South Africa; NZ & Oz.
> Is the formulation here similar?
No, it is not similar. It is a new concept for a new reality. Brazil acts
not only as a minor partner of American, European and Japanese imperialisms,
but also as a mini-imperialist on its own interests.>
> 3) Finally, as an old dog who really finds new tricks hard to learn - how
exactly is this terminology different from 'comprador' and 'national'
capital?
Brazilian subimperialism is not only "comprador"; it is an industrially and
financianlly rather established country, which exports goods and capitals,
especially to its neighbours and to nations in Africa and the Near East.
This subimperialism is not "national", as in it there work mostly
multinational corporations and national groups closely associated with
multinational corporations.
> A please at this juncture; Please no fearsome tirades from the T-ite
vigilantes here.
> I am asking an un-emotive question.
>
> With thanks once more to Renata & Nestor for having the courtesy to
address honest questions.
> Hari
>
> >
Thank you for your attention.
Renato>
> During the first years of the military regime, Brazil displayed a
> most menacing "subimperialist" policy, thus justifying Ruy Mauro
> Marini's definition, which of course did _not_ imply that Brazil had
> become a minor member of the imperialist gang like, say, Denmark or,
> even, Greece.
>
> What the Brazilian military did in those times was in essence what
> the Hispanic American countries, particularly the River Plate basin
> countries, used to term the "perfidious policies of Itamaraty".
>
> Itamaraty is one of the names of the Brazilian Ministry for Foreign
> Affairs.  The fact is, however, that the policies of Itamaraty were
> neither perfidious nor egregious, but simply and essentially
> _policies_.  The River Plate republics (and most Hispanic American
> republics save for, partially, Mexico) lacked absolutely anything
> like that.  The "policies" of the Argentinean Foreign Affairs
> Ministery, for example, were particularly erratic, futile, snobbish,
> clumsy and makeshift.
>
> There were historic and social reasons for this, and it would be long
> to explain them here, but the fact is that without this fact in mind,
> it is hard to understand what does this issue of Brazilian
> "subimperialism" mean.
>
> When the coup of 1964 put the whole of Brazil under the undisguised
> and uncontained lordship of imperialist multinationals and financial
> centers, the state naturally followed suit, and so did Itamaraty.
> Thus, its policies acquired the scent of a rabidly pro-imperialist
> bully's sweat, and they were developed seriously.
>
> For example, during the mid/late 1960s there was a fear in Bras?lia
> that the Uruguayan Left reached power, and they menaced with
> invasion.
>
> This "subimperialism" was unique in that there was nothing the like
> across borders, particularly in Argentina.
>
> The Brazilian oligarchy had a long tradition of collaboration with
> foreign powers: it  dates back to the implantation in Rio (1808) of
> the complete Portuguese court by the long and strong arm of Britain.
> That is, it starts with very beginnings of the history of independent
> Brazil (and it is even possible to trace it even further back, to the
> 1703 Methuen treaty between Lisbon and London).
>
> On the contrary, the Argentinean diplomacy, whose main target (had it
> seriously intended to match Itamaraty) should have been not just the
> "reconstitution of the old Vice Royalty of the River Plate" [as
> Itamaraty -completely wrong on this- blamed Juan Manuel de Rosas
> (1829-1853) to attempt] but the reunification of at least the
> republics of Hispanic South America, had in the end no target at all,
> because our own oligarchy lacked any interest in South America other
> than murder the Argentinean population of the Inland provinces and
> keep Buenos Aires safely protected from any American heroic
> adventure.
>
> The Argentinean dictatorship of 1966-73 attempted to match and if
> possible to challenge and even win over Itamaraty by offering our own
> country as the most privileged partner for American imperialism.  But
> not only it was not as sure a partner as Brazil was (mainly due to
> internal reasons, the resilient resistence of Peronism not the less
> important of them), it lacked the diplomatic abilities that Itamaraty
> displayed.
>
> When the character of the Brazilian policy began to change (and this
> was evident already with Geisel), the policies of Itamaraty changed
> accordingly.
>
> Today, the idea that Brazil displays a "subimperialist" policy is one
> of the main lines of attack of the not yet fully born South American
> Confederation of Nations.
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism