Re: Re: Memory & History: Herman Melville's _Benito Cereno_ (was...

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 23:55 11/10/00 -0400, Yoshie wrote:

> The point is that American leftists' foremost duty is to diminish the
> American hegemony abroad, if they care about the degree of freedom that
> peoples elsewhere possess to shape their own destinies.  Are you not in
> favor of more freedom, especially more freedom from American hegemony?

I feel that Yoshie Furishi is being more conscientious in addressing lines
of demarcation than the owner of The Marxism List but as challenges are out
of order in the civil world of PEN-L I will just note that despite quite a
large number of other posts, Proyect declined to respond to my post about
his definition of marxism. That is of course entirely his prerogative, but
if it goes on indefinitely in due course people may come to find his list
less of a relevant crossroads of informed opinion.

Yoshie's formula above "foremost duty" of "American leftists" avoids
reductionist definitions of marxism and is something with which I have a
lot of sympathy. Indeed I would welcome a virtually explicit alliance in
marxism space between those trying to undermine American hegemony from
within and those outside.

Many of my posts about developments in Europe are based on a hope that we
will move to a more multi-polar world, and powers like Europe, Japan, China
possibly in alliance with the Soviet Union, can succeed in limiting the
freedom of action of US imperialism.

Where I differ I think from Yoshie is in believing compromises even with
the devil are essential if the human race is to achieve this project. And
any form of marxism that says "no compromises" is IMHO not marxism, to put
it politely. Contemplating the world even from the purest most embittered
motives is not the point. The point is to change it.

Yoshie notes correctly as far as I am concerned:

> It is possible that some American liberals & leftists actually understood
> the essence of the American Prince's role in the Yugoslav civil wars (and
> what happened before and after them) and said with open eyes, "yes, in the
> main this is about the American Prince acquiring new sphere of influence,
> but the American Prince will be a more progressive Prince than a Yugoslav
> Prince," but I doubt it.  To my knowledge, only Chris Burford has made
> this line of argument.

The qualification I would make is that the hegemonic prince of the Balkans
is somewhat more likely to be the European Union. Regardless of moral or
aesthetic considerations we are seeing a movement going on under our eyes
of eastern Europe as far as the old border of the Soviet Union, falling
under the influence of the European Union.

There are major differences under the surface between US and European
imperialism, and they nearly broke up over the Kosovo war, which stretched
them to the limit. Europe in particular is determined not to get into that
situation again and took major decisions about integrating its armed forces
afterwards.

As to whether it is progressive or not, look at Croatia. There was
sustained interference in Croatia over the last 5 years and the party of
Tudjman was massively defeated in the polls this year. Recently the new
president has had the courage to outface the fascist wing of the army and
sack 7 (or was it 5) generals for supporting terror against those giving
testimony about human rights abuses.

Yoshie speaks sincerely I am sure of her experience of a wall of
incomprehension from American leftists when she opposes interference in
regimes that admittedly are less than ideal. I for my part have experienced
a wall amounting to censorship preventing discussion of the possibility
that certain formations in the former socialist countries are in essence
fascist.

Extemely difficult choices must have been faced, and are still faced daily,
by sincere marxists in Eastern Europe, but the task is to revisit the call
of "workers of all countries, unite". In a situation where the local
bureaucrat national bourgeoisie is fomenting a fascist terror against
workers of another faith or language, concretely it becomes
*more*  progressive (yes yes an extremely relative and impure sort of
choice) to support the influence of international finance capital in favour
of basic bourgeois democratic rights.

It becomes a concrete choice whether to support or oppose the closing of
B92 because it will publish accounts of war atrocities by the national
social fascists, even though you may know through the internet that a
private US owner of a marxism list, has reason to believe that B92 is also
supported by the CIA and George Soros.

Because what is likely to be the net result of this fervent and
contradictory interplay of forces in 10 years time? It is *more* likely to
be a confederation of the peoples of the western Balkans on the basis of
the respect for the right of nations to self determination, than not. That
provides a better basis for the reestablishment of unity between the
working people of the Balkans.

And in the wider Europe, under the hegemony of European finance capitalism,
we have a prospect of a whole swathe of countries in which socialism,  is
respected as a bit more than a folk memory. In them members of former
communist parties earn the respect of a significant proportion of the
electorate, where they have been prepared to learn lessons about living in
a pluralist society. This coupled with the Christian Democrat traditions of
western Europe, provides some hope of rallying the Europrean agenda for the
need for social production to be controlled by social foresight.



Yoshie started this thread with a sustained psycho-social commentary on a
story by Melville which was an object lesson in how to analyse literature
with political insight. I was reminded of critiques of Shakespeare's
Tempest, although the time and social context of the play were very different.

She ended her contribution by extending the criticism of Americans.

> American leftists used to laugh at Amasa Delanos -- oppressors who think
> of themselves as do-gooders -- of the evil empire.  Nowadays, American
> leftists act like Amasa Delano, with one twist -- believing that they are
> saving Babos from Benito Cerenos.  What has not changed, however, is the
> idea that it is Americans who should bring criminals of the world to
> justice.  It goes without saying that this self-image makes Americans
> forget the fact that they are the biggest criminals: the only remaining
> superpower that acts with impunity, for there is no one in the world who
> can bring Americans to justice.

Now I would readily agree that Americans have many objectionable
characteristics, almost as many as the English. And no doubt Yoshie, living
in the belly of the beast, the USA, has the opportunity of studying these
in depth.

But her conclusions above to my mind are still confined yo the level of a
moral critic. I would urge that in a subtle and non-reductionist way, the
pattern one can discern in the literature or any area of the
superstructure, is according to the marxist perspective, ultimately a
reflection of the economic base. That is as true of Melville as it is of
Shakespeare. The art of marxist analysis is how to discuss this without
falling into a new reductionism.

We cannot expect large swathes of the population to be able to break free
of the inevitable confines of their social and economic position in the
world. Citizens of the US should not be belaboured too vigorously for these
moral failings.

What I would suggest to Yoshie is that these attitudes of mind are a
reflection of yes, a rising imperialism and now an imperialism that is
massively hegemonic by the concentration of capital in the USA. The
fluidity of global communications intensifies this process at the same time
as it creates the global civil society against which the hegemon must
increasingly justify his (her?) actions.

The contradiction for progressives the world over now is that on the one
hand the overwhelming dominance of finance capital creates a momentum for a
global concept of bourgeois human rights, and on the other hand it
magnifies the discrepancies in the economic strength of different regions.

Promoting human rights is a policy of the dominant finance capitalist wing
of capitalism, but it is not just a policy. It is an inevitability
independent of human will. Leftists of the world need a dialectical (sorry
Proyect!) policy that acknowledges different main roles for people
according to their geographical location  but which also dialectically
addresses the bourgeois human rights agenda *but* extends it to the issue
of social human rights, including the right to economic security and
progressive development.

And the most revolutionary leftists have got to stop contemplating the
world from a pure revolutionary standpoint and accept that on the world
agenda  they have to get their hands dirty by dealing with reforms.

Because the paradox is, if leftists in the USA sincerely wish to work with
leftists in the rest of the world to undermine US hegemony, then they need
to accept that not every action of the US government is reactionary. They
must fight the battle of reforms to favour the progressive actions versus
the reactionary actions of the USA.

Yoshie is not correct to say there is no power to bring the USA to justice.
There is the emerging global civil society, in which sustained debates like
this play a part.

A just world government will not arise out of the heads of dreamers. It
will arise out of the heads of oppressors under pressure from the people.
This cannot but be an impure highly confused process.

Thus in England in the 12th century, the self-confessed murderer of Thomas
a Becket, set up (for his own purposes) the basis of the English system of
judge made law.

In the 21st century, world government will come through the actions of the
hegemons.

The battle over *how* the USA and Europe act as hegemons will shape the
world government that will develop.

A stance of pure opposition even to US imperialism is a philistine
moralistic stance not in the interests of the proletariat of the world, to
paraphrase Lenin.


Chris Burford

London