Re: inter/ra imperialist contradictions

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 20/01/02 20:33 +0100, you wrote:
> > Together with sustained attacks on the working class growing capitalist
> > contradictions will tend to generate increased inter-imperialist
> > rivalry. Such rivalry developing into conflict can explode into
> > inter-imperialist war in which the future of humanity becomes
> > questionable. > Karl Carlile
>
> Completely disconnected from reality. There is only one imperialism left,
> centered on the USA, the expansionism of which is called "globalization". If
> future of humanity becomes questionable, it is due to the crisis of this
> last world system, taking the whole civilization to its grave. History
> agreed with Rosa Luxemburg, not with Lenin. Take some time to check that.
> RK


There is a degree of inter-imperialist, or perhaps we should say more
intra-imperialist, rivalry. I find the International Herald Tribune a
useful monitor of how the jostling is going on.

I broadly agree with Romain's perception on this. Earlier this week I
posted the following on LBO-talk about the major defeat for the US in the
WTO. But informed articles about the outcome assume that there will be a
period of ritualised conflict propelled by the rule that the EU may now
impose some retaliation on the USA. It will not come to outright
hostilities because the major global financial corporations benefit by US
export assistance, and also fundamentally want a more peaceful stable
environment for their activities.

Concerning the moral question of the ethics of how detainees are treated,
the Chairman of the UK Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Committee has just
gone on television to say that representations have been made to Bush at
the "highest level" of the UK government about the importance of treating
the prisoners on Guantanamo humanely, and being seen to do so.

> Two major areas of controversy this week confirm the prediction at the
> beginning of "Empire" that new juridical forms for a global capitalist
> system, are at stake.
>
> 1) The major WTO ruling against the USA about subsidies to its largest
> capitalist companies, opens the door to a programme of retaliatory measures
> by the European Union. Interestingly although the EU is by far the smaller
> economy in turnover, it is larger in population and appears to have the
> political will to carry this struggle through to some form of compromise.
> Whatever this compromise is, may rewrite the rules of global capitalism, as
> giant finance capital does not need this instability. Its interests lie in
> a more coherent management of its affairs.
>
> 2) The non prisoners-of-war held in Guantanamo are attracting a lot of
> attention in Britain, even if public opinion in the USA thinks they should
> all be dropped into the sea from helicopters. There is interest because
> some of the detainees are constitutionally British. But above all us Brits
> can see that Blair is having to squirm even more lithely than usual to
> maintain loyalty to the USA and a global vision of a New Empire, run by
> himself and Gordon Brown.
>
> The transparent administration of justice to these detainees is an
> important area of uncertainty and creativity of new precedents in the
> formation of Empire.


Romain may not agree with the idiom of "Empire" but I wonder whether he
would say that the friction that can occur between imperialist states
should better be thought of as intra-imperialist conflict


Chris Burford

London