Any time the capitalists fight among themselves, there are mixed results.
On the one hand, it does weaken their "core", as Steve and Ken correctly point
out. They are correct to encourage support for anti-imperialist struggles. That
is no small matter. It opens up OPPORTUNITIES for ridding the world of
their murderous system.
But OPPORTUNITIES are only that---opportunities. When the capitalists fight
among themselves, they also kill many millions of innocent people.
And it often just replaces one oppressor with another. From the USSR to
Algeria to Congo, nationalism has been the enemy of human liberation. Even
nationalism directed against imperialism. Before I get jumped on by those who
mistakenly would assert that I am, by default, supporting the nationalism of the
oppressor, let me make clear that nationalist STRUGGLES against imperialism have
the important aspect of working class and other oppressed people of one nation
fighting against their oppression by the capitalists of another nation. That's
fine! That's terrific! We need to, and many of us certainly given much
effort to help, support that wholeheartedly, as we oppose the imperialist
wars.
But there is a second aspect, which seems to always become primary---local
capitalists proceed to oppress the population, and furthermore, sometimes the
same and sometimes ANOTHER group of capitalists/imperialists from other nations
come along and oppress the population. In fact, in just about every case.
Even the struggle of the Vietnamese against the U.S., perhaps the most profound
struggle of its type of the past fifty years--even in that case, Vietnam has
devolved into a capitalist state, where over 90% of the property is in private
hands and the Vietnamese leaders are desperately trying to auction off the cheap
labor of the Vietnamese working class to whichever imperialist would like to
invest there.
Nationalist struggles against imperialism have two aspects: the aspect of
working class people struggling against oppression must be supported. The aspect
of Nationalism, itself, is the negative aspect. Nationalism, itself, as an
ideology, does not have two aspects. At least, not today. It is the negative
aspect of the nationalist struggles against imperialism. Surely, from Algeria to
Iran, that should be clear now.
This is not some abstract point. It is especially important, now that
there seems to be struggle within the "core" imperialist powers. It is important
to NOT side with France/Germany, or even "the U.N.", which may be out of the
complete control of the U.S. imperialists, but which is still primarily under
the control of SOME imperialists. This is a real question throughout Asia,
Africa, and Latin America, where nationalist movements there are sometimes being
aided by Euro-imperialists in their effort to undercut U.S. imperialism. As we
focus opposition against U.S. imperialism, we should never do anything to build
illusions about the Euro-imperialists. That, unfortunately, is what is happening
to some extent in the peace movement.
Lest I be accused of being an ideological "purist" who cares more for
philosophy than for the well-being of real humans, I would only point out that
one can find empirical evidence of the major suffering of people after a bloody
war, when they have merely exchanged one set of imperialists for another. In any
case, I would never say that we should oppose, or abstain from struggles against
imperialism because they are not "fully Marxist". We should participate in all
kinds of reform struggles. But if we don't want to keep going around in circles,
we had better sharply critique the reformist aspect of those struggles as we
build on the opportunities that those struggles open up. To fail to critique the
reformist, and nationalist, aspects opens the door to new rounds of
oppression.
As to this comment:
"I haven't heard too many voices from the post-colonial world
claim that formal independence was of no matter, just because the US et al
continue to dominate their economies."
I would suggest the following:
Of course it was important that those struggles took place. Just as we
participated in the struggles to end apartheid in South Africa and rejoiced when
it was dismantled. But we need to temper that enthusiasm. Many of the "voices"
we hear are those of intellectuals. The voices of many of the rank-and-file
workers and other oppressed people are muffled, either by nationalists such as
in Iran, or by the massive poverty and disease that crushes so many in South
Africa, and in that bastion of anti-imperialist history, Ethiopia. In both
those places, and many others, a case could be made that the people are no
better off materially, having exchanged one set of rulers for another. And
yes, it was important that those anti-imperialist, anti-racist struggles took
place, and that we support them, because valuable lessons were learned.
My concern is that sometimes, the wrong lessons are learned, when people
lose their critical edge towards critiquing the new capitalist rulers,
including, of course, "core" powers that appear to oppose one imperialism
because they wish to replace it with another.
Alan Spector
===================================================================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: Hitler in the context of his
times.
> In a message dated
3/14/2003 12:20:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, spectors@netnitco.net writes:
>
> I
haven't heard too many voices from the post-colonial world claim that formal
independence was of no matter, just because the US et al continue to dominate
their economies. And the nostalgia with which the center-right (and even some
liberals) in the US look at colonialism speak loads about what was lost.
The independence struggles permanently shattered the notion that humanity is
divided between those who act and those who are taken care of and
infantilized. This was crucial.
>
> Ken Richards is right
that it was the core's descent into self-destructive chaos ('World War II') that
provided the context for this victory. However, Hitler does not deserve
some sort of special credit for this, anymore than the allies who produced the
Versaille treaty (which helped lead to the unbalances that led to WWII).
>
> Steven Sherman
>
> > No, all it did was pave the way
for the US to take over the role of imperialist superstar. The misery and deaths
in the neo-colonial world has been just as terrible as it was before. The
independence was often in name only, with economies and politics and military
still dominated by imperialist powers. And while there were some temporary
material gains, conditions in Africa today, as well as much of Asia and Latin
America are not particularly better than when France and England directly ruled
them......
> >
> > Let's not get into choosing which
imperialist is kinder and
> > gentler
>
>