Re: [Marxism] Imperialism

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Because Angelus Novus hates to be told that Imperialism means class
> war across borders. And that it is defined by class colaboration of
> vast masses of the proletariat in the core countries of the system
> with their own bourgeoisies as distinct from class war of the
> proletariat in the core countries of the system against their own
> bourgeoisies. And that this colaboration, until new conditions
> appear, will define the attitude of that proletariat vis a vis
> expoliation and loot of the world outside the Golden Billion.

Well, yes, in a sense it does mean class war across borders, whether
you mean the capitalist exploiting labor outside the national boundary
or the metropolitan worker enjoys some material advantages because of
the capitalist's exploitation of labor abroad. And, yes, I suppose
that there is some kind of implicit collaboration of the core country
proletariat with its bourgeoisie.

But I'm not at all happy with the way you put it.

For one thing, that a core proletariat gains benefits from imperialism
does not necessarily mean class collaboration in any full or subjective
sense. If I have an interest-free checking account, that is a benefit
of the bank's investment of account monies in the capitalist
system. Objectively I may therefore be a collaborator, but that is to
put the matter so strongly that it misleads.

First, there is the question of the degree by which I benefit. An
interest free checking account will hardly encourage me to support the
capitalist system and stop my working against it. The capitalist
bourgeoisie must create a popular commonwealth if they want to collect
taxes, have social peace at home, have stability at the point of
production and expect to recruit the cannon fodder for imperial
expansion. And yet there are also liabilities: dying in some remote
battlefield, and in the US today, for example, a host of problems such
as health care, foreclosures, etc.

In fact, while people do probably benefit to some extent from
imperialism, that is to a lesser degree obvious today as capitalist
contradictions deepen. If one looks at the actual conditions of life
in the US and compares them with other places, there are real
advantages, but real problems as well. If the average person indeed
did live "the life of Riley", I might be more persuaded by the
co-option argument.

However, I don't believe a cost/benefit analysis such as I've hinting
at here tells us much. A revolutionary potential does not arise from
misery, nor is it dampened by a degree of prosperity. Sociology 101:
revolution arises from the frustration of rising expectations. There
are always problems (capitalism is, after all, contradictory), and if
one come to believe that positive change is possible, but it does not
happen, then bango. This is why struggle is a constant necessity (and
there's plenty of venues for struggle despite the benefits of empire)
and there must be reason to hope for success.

I suspect the reason for the passivity of workers in economically
developed countries such as the US is not because they have been
bought off to any significant extent, but because they have no basis
to hope for positive change (for whatever reason such change is
unlikely).

What troubles me about your description of the situation, which to
some extent may be true in fact, is that the enemy becomes the
proletariat in advanced countries rather than the capitalist! Is
solidarity possible across borders, between workers living in quite
different situations, who differ in culture and standard of living? An
empiricist would say it is unlikely; someone with real experience in
human relations would say, certainly.

To put this in very simplistic terms, if I had a brother who did well
in life while I, on the other hand, was rather impoverished, that
should not destroy our loving fraternal relationship. I'm happy he is
doing so well. I realize this is not how life often works out, but
because it can and it often does happen, we need to understand how a
relationship can survive empirical distinctions. In fact, in my (urban
and largely minority) neighborhood, we frequently congratulate
ourselves for its wonderful diversity, and those who are poor do not
resent those fellow members of the working class who happen to be
better off.
 
Haines Brown

  

________________________________________________
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