Re: [Marxism] Imperialism in 1848

["sartesian" <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Return of the prodigal something or other:

The moderator has lifted the ban on my participation, for which I thank
him.

A couple of things, or more than a couple, about imperialism then and
now, here and there, "progress" and "development":

The "progressive" component of capitalism in 1848 for Marx and in
history consists of several things, but what it most certainly does NOT
consist of, nor is identical to, is the "progressive" nature of the
bourgeoisie.

Even before 1848, the bourgeoisie are then as they are now, committed
first and foremost to the preservation of property, private property,
and in their efforts at preservation will accommodate, compromise, and
capitulate to the most "backward" economic and social elements in the
existing order.

Even before 1848, the bourgeoisie are pushed, kicked, dragged by other
fragments of the society, the workers, the urban petit-bourgeoisie, the
landless, the rural poor, those without pants, to take actions that are
barely "radical" much less revolutionary.

Before and after 1848, the bourgeoisie in both the "center" and the
periphery  rest themselves on the foundation of archaic relations of
labor, and  land, and particularly landed labor.   We only need to
examine the history of Latin America to see this at work.

The "progressive" nature of capitalism, 1848 and beyond, is that no
matter what else it does or tries to do, capitalism introduces the
conflict between the means and relations of production, the conflict
between the means of production organized as private, bourgeois,
property and labor organized as wage labor, everywhere it goes.
Capitalism is "progressive" only to the extent, it introduces class
struggle into every other contradiction, conflict, problem of economic
organization.

Being capital, it cannot overcome that contradiction at its core, and
thus is circumscribed by the cage of its own making, and incapable of
resolving the contradictions it encounters in pre-existing relations.
We only need to look at the history of Latin America, India, etc.
Capitalism can wreck, it can immiserate, it can destroy, but... as the
US Civil War and the rollback of Reconstruction attest, it cannot truly
emancipate.

That much being said, the question to ask, the standard to measure China
or South Africa or Vietnam, is not "color" or "geography."  It is class.
Is working class rule, is social ownership, control, and direction of
the economic, political organization of society being strengthened or
weakened by the policies of ANC? the CCP?

Now perhaps the introduction of billions of dollars in foreign
investment in China, the sanctioning of private property, the
expropriation of land from the rural poor and its sale and lease to
private corporations and individuals-- in short the creation of a
bourgeoisie-- is someone's idea of strengthening the working class and
progress.

But it certainly is not Marx's.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu