[PEN-L:7164] Re: Re: Re: imperialism and Imperialism

["J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>]

Paul,
     Thanks for your reply.  The situation does indeed
seem to be very murky.  I certainly would like to find
out more about the facts on the ground.
     BTW, of course Louis's categorization of Serbia
(is Montenegro different from Serbia, or can we
safely talk about "Yugoslavia" in this discussion?) as
a "mixed economy" was strictly accurate but not very
useful as almost every economy is strictly speaking
mixed.  Heck, the US government still owns more than
80% of the land in Nevada, as rabid right wingers will
tell you (land which it has used for nuclear tests, Area
51, and now wants to do so for storing nuclear wastes).
     The sense in which the "mixed" categorization holds
and held for the former Yugoslavia more generally is in
the fact that agriculture always remained in private hands,
except for a brief collectivization effort right after WW II
when Tito was still in his super-Stalinist phase.  In that
regard Yugoslavia and Poland were similar.  However, I
would say that it was accurate to call Yugoslavia a
"market socialist-oriented mixed economy" (as is accurate
for China right now also) and this may still be accurate
for the current Yugoslavia as well.
     The US is clearly a "market capitalist-oriented mixed
economy."
     Looking forward to your Slovenia study.
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, May 22, 1999 12:12 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7145] Re: Re: imperialism and Imperialism


Barkley,
This is a hell of a topic.  I am just at this moment writing up the
results of our  case study/survey of the legacy of self management
in Slovenia (which I will send you for comment before sending it off
for publication) and I admit I don't know enough of what has
happened in Serbia since  I was last there -- everytime I get an
invitation to come someone  embargoes or bombs Serbia so I can't
really find out what is going on, particularly with respect to social
and public ownershi of the mop.  The last time I was there and able
to make some judgement, the situation was decidedly mixed.

Paul Phillips,
\Economics,
University of Manitoba

ps. incidentely I am speaking next week on a panel  including the
former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, the historian Michael
Bliss who is "embarrassed to be a Canadian", and the former head
of the Canadian force in Kosovo.  Every one of the panel is
opposed to our current (and NATO's ) genocidal policy in
Yugoslavia.  I will let you know of the outcome.

From:           "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
To:             <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:        [PEN-L:7129] Re: imperialism and Imperialism
Date sent:      Fri, 21 May 1999 16:44:59 -0400
Send reply to:  pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Jim,
>      Actually Louis P. has argued that Serbia (or Yugoslavia)
> is socialist and he has a point.  He goes farther than I do in
> declaring that Milosevic was elected because of his defense
> of Serbian workers against imperialist privatization threats
> rather than for his appeals to ethnic chauvinism, and that he
> should be defended as some kind of leader of the global
> vanguard of the proletariat none of whose actions can be
> criticized because then one has become a mouthpiece for
> objectively pro-imperialist agents.  If the US atttacks him
> (and his supporters (along with a lot of other "collateral" folks))
> then he can do no wrong.
>      It is socialist in the old formal definition which I think is quite
> useful (this is Marx's definition, I believe) of state ownership of
> the means of production.  Now I know that a lot of people on this
> list don't like that definition for a lot of reasons, either finding it
> too narrow or too broad, or just plain useless.  Thus Louis P.
> has in the past rejected the idea that such places as Syria or
> Iraq are socialist just because they have high levels of state
> ownership of the m.o.p., if I am remembering correctly (and I
> wish to do so, given how heated we are all getting here, and
> I like to think of Uncle Lou as a friend these days),   Serbia
> under Milosevic certainly has resisted privatization and has
> annoyed various outsiders with this stance, although I do not
> think that David Rockefeller has called special secret meetings
> of the Trilateral/Bilderburgers to order Albright to zap Serbia
> because of its threat to global capitalism by its intransigence
> vis a vis privatization.
>       One other aspect of the current state of the Yugoslav
> economy, and I ask Paul Phillips to clarify this if he can (asked
> you before, Paul, but you desisted), is that it is my understanding
> that there has been some movement back towards central
> planning and command in the nature of the economy, compared
> with what was in place under Tito, that is away from market
> socialism. Although he has not discussed it, to the extent that
> it is true, based on past positions, I believe that Louis P. would
> also applaud this also.
>      A remaining issue that is very unclear is to
> what extent the half-baked remnants of the old workers'
> management system remain in place, to the extent that it
> ever really existed which some dispute, something I believe
> that Paul Phillips is more knowledgeable about than anybody
> else on this list.  I read an account from an Albanian Kosovar
> who claimed that after the removal of autonomy in 1990 that
> on the apparently still existing workers' councils that the Albanians
> could no longer voice their opinions.  But that is obviously just
> one probably biased person's perspective.
> Barkley Rosser
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, May 21, 1999 3:43 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:7122] imperialism and Imperialism
>
>
> >Barkley wrote: >... There are deep ethnic conflicts with wrongs committed
> >on both sides [of the Kosova/o conflict]. Outside powers of various sorts
> >have gotten involved in various ways and in some cases exacerbated
things,
> >including some parties in the US and Germany in the 1980s and 1990s. This
> >most recent war effort by the US and NATO is simply unacceptable and
> >causing far more death and destruction than anything it is accomplishing.
> >But I am more willing to blame it on misguided incompetence than on some
> >grand imperial scheme to dismember socialist Serbia. What has been
> >imperialistic has been the manner in which it has been conducted and the
> >assumption of the right to conduct it in violation of international
> >agreements and law.<
> >
> >Is there anyone on pen-l who sees Serbia as "socialist"? in what sense?
> >what do they mean by "socialism" and in what sense does Serbia fit this
> >definition?
> >
> >More substantially, I think that it's useful to bring up Vlad. Lenin's
> >concept of (capitalist) Imperialism not as a policy of a national
> >government (which is the way Kautsky and many others have seen it) but as
a
> >type of socioeconomic system that arises from capitalism's globalization
> >drive. Frankly, I don't think that the idea of imperialism-as-policy
> >(Barkley's usage above) should be flushed down the toilet of history;
> >Kautsky wasn't wrong to point as much as superficial in his analysis.
> >Rather, I wish there were two separate words for
> >Imperialism-as-socioeconomic-system and imperialism-as-policy. Call them
> >large-I and small-i imperialisms.
> >
> >It's pretty clear that the US/NATO war against Serbia is small-i
> >imperialistic, as Barkley says. And such policies can be (and often are)
> >incompetent; consider the history of the US war against Vietnam.
> >
> >But what about capitalist Imperialism? To me, it's a type of system that
> >has a logic of its own that goes beyond the intentions and actions of
> >Clinton, Blair, Alnotsobright, etc. This logic creates changes in the
> >object conditions that these nabobs face, problems that they feel that
they
> >must deal with as Leaders of the West, since they must preserve peace and
> >profitability for their main clients, legitimating and reproducting their
> >social system over time.
> >
> >Here, a recent article in the (US-based) NATION magazine by Zizek (sp?)
was
> >suggestive. The article wasn't as as good as one single point that wasn't
> >really developed (though it did show up as a subheadline): globalization
> >created the mess in the Balkans and will create similar messes in the
> >future, so that in a weird and indirect sense, Clinton created Milosevic.
> >
> >Capitalist Imperialism involves, as old Karlos pointed out, a constant
> >drive for capitals to expand like crazy, not only in competition with
each
> >other but also as a way to deal with fractious workforces. It tends to
> >"batter down all Chinese walls," a phrase which takes on new meaning in
> >light of recent events. But what it meant to Marx and Engels (in the
> >MANIFESTO) was capitalism's tendency to expand like crazy, swallowing up,
> >destroying, and/or subordinating the various noncapitalist social
> >organizations that people have set up around the world (unless the
> >resistance is too strong).
> >
> >For most of the last century, capitalist Imperialism involved competing
> >capitalist nation-states and/or the threat of a noncapitalist industrial
> >and military system (the USSR and USSR-type countries). But in recent
> >decades, there's been a slow (and sometimes rapid) shift away from
> >competing nation-state-based capitalisms or Cold War Imperialism to the
> >creation of a generalized and globalized capitalism, spearheaded by the
US,
> >the IMF, the World Bank, etc. The new kind of capitalist Imperialism
seems
> >more akin to that described by Marx and Engels than to the competition of
> >national capitals described by Lenin, Bukarin, etc. (A "national capital"
> >involves a government/business alliance promoting the wealth of a nation
> >(especially its richest people) using tariffs and other trade
restrictions,
> >like the US before 1945 or so plus Japan, Inc., South Korea, Inc., etc.)
> >
> >The problem -- for Clinton, Blair, etc. -- is that the globalization
drive
> >(as exemplified by the tearing apart of the old Yugoslavia into Croatia,
> >Slovenia, Serbia, etc., by Reagan, the IMF, Germany, etc.) destroys the
old
> >_status quo_, disrupting any kind of societal equilibrium that may have
> >kept the peace. (A lot of Karl Polanyi's reputation arises from his
> >emphasis on this point.)
> >
> >Lots of businesspeople from the rich countries expect to profit from new
> >profit opportunities in the (what are now termed) "emerging markets"
while
> >they are comforted by the imposition of free-market orthodoxy, often
linked
> >to superficial (and thus nonthreatening) democracy. But the destruction
of
> >the old _status quo_ can unleash the worst kinds of conflicts, as with
the
> >ethnic hatreds of the old Yugoslavia or the religious nonsense of the
> >Ayatollah Khomeni. At the same time, the spread of the new economic
system
> >and the "we're better than you" attitude of the New Men of Power who come
> >from the outside stirs up nationalist resentment and resistance. So, in a
> >weird and indirect way, Clinton (the spokesmodel for Imperialism) helped
to
> >create Milosevic (the ethnic chauvinist who mouths anti-imperialist
> slogans).
> >
> >Milosevic uses "anti-imperialist" slogans, but it should be stressed that
> >(as far as I can see), he's not opposed to Imperialism as much as he
wants
> >a better role for his country in that system: he seems to like the old
> >model of capitalist Imperialism as involving competing national capitals,
> >with his country as one of those national capitals, rather than opposing
> >capitalist Imperialism as a system. His opposition seems much more akin
to
> >that of the Mussolini before and during World War II (i.e., the seeking
of
> >a bigger piece of the world pie for Italy, at the expense of its
neighbors)
> >than to that of the Zapatistas.
> >
> >comments? criticisms?
> >
> >Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
> >http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
> >Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO
out
> >of Serbia!
> >
> >
>