< < <
Date Index
> > >
Re: Hitler in the context of his times.
by Alan Spector
16 March 2003 16:04 UTC
< < <
Thread Index
> > >
If I were in India or Vietnam in the 1940's, Ghana, Kenya, or "the Belgium Congo" in the 1950's, or Algeria or Angola in the 1960's, I would have been an active supporter of those struggles for independence.
 
I have nothing but contempt for those "leftists" who extol the joys of "modernization" brought on by imperialism.........and we certainly saw some of that on some progressive lists with cheerleading in support of the military attack on Afghanistan being "justified" with references to parts of some of Marx's early writings on India.  Those were national liberation struggles--they were political in form (independence, regardless of which class took power after independence), but the content of those struggles were mixed, since I believe that what motivated so many people to risk their lives was the vision of something that had a prodoundly anti-elitist, pro-egalitarian aspect, whether or not it was expressed as conscious Marxism.
 
But even during those independence struggles, it would be necessary to persistently build a base for anti-capitalist consciousness and struggle. That means struggling against the "nationalist aspect" of that struggle and struggling for working class control within that nation (even if it means confronting the pro-capitalist nationalists who may have helped lead the struggle). And it calls for developing internationalism, support for other struggles. Was I the only one who watched with dismay as "socialist Vietnam" and "socialist China", where two of the greatest struggles took place, engaged in armed warfare against each other?
 
Certainly it is difficult to imagine anything worse than what King Leopold did to the people of parts of Africa. But one could argue that the people of Ethiopia today, and certainly Congo, are living in a hell that is also unimaginable.
 
Nationalist struggles against imperialism are certainly worthy causes (obviously). But nationalism, as an ideology, seems to always support that part of the struggle that promotes devolution back to capitalism, and often, in alliance with other imperialists. If Mugabe sells "his people" to the French, is that something to applaud?
 
At this point in the anti-war struggle, there seem to be a lot of people who don't fully grasp that there is an inter-imperialist aspect to some of the opposition to the U.S. war. It's not as if we should applaud Chirac, after all.....   So basically, I'm just trying to make that aspect of the situation more a point of investigation and controversy.
 
best,
Alan Spector
 
=============================================================
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: Hitler in the context of his times.

It's seems worth noting that post-colonial administrations have experienced particular moments in their nations' histories in which to realize and exercise their independent political rights,  no matter the circumscription of those same rights within the global political framework and the economic constraints involved.

At such junctures in their history,  given their new found freedoms, the fruit of their independence, the post-colonial regimes have found that they can play the national interests of one imperial power against another with varying degrees of success;  a political manuever which would have been inconcievable prior to their political independence.

Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, was recently hosted by France at an economic summit, in spite of, or due to the fact that the United States and the British Commonwealth have been actively seeking to isolate Zimbabwe politically and economically, as well as to thoroughly demonize Mr. Mugabe personally in the press.  

France has in fact been making overtures to Zimbabwe in light of the fact that Britain and the United States have usurped French influence in Rwanda;  this same Anglo-American alliance has supported the armed invasion, occupation and looting of the eastern half of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in central Africa's francophone zone by two east African anglophone states, Uganda and Rwanda.

Given the fact that Zimbabwe, as head of the Southern African Development Committee, (SADC), led a military effort in support of the government in the D.R.C., a government opposed by the US, Britain, Uganda and Rwanda,  it is quite natural that France and Zimbabwe would seek political and economic agreements with one another.  

At the same time,  acting against British and American sanctions, which include attempts to cut off all international credits to Zimbabwe, the later has responded by increasing the extent of and expanding the rate of their national land reform program. Of course, the British and American's have been denouncing the land reform program as a "land grab" by a handful of Mugabe's political cronies, even as they all but curse the tens of thousands of "black squatters" resettling the land whom they equally denounce as "land thieves". (Oddly, Zionist in Palestine, in fact, Europeans the world over, have universally been described as *settlers* in the Western press when they engage in similar endeavors.  Apparently, it is only the indigenous who illegally squat their native land.)  Never-the-less,  political independence has permitted the government of Zimbabwe to engage the Chinese in contracts for the construction of dams, large scale irrigation systems and land preparation operations in an effort to increase Zimbabwe's agricultural capacity.  

What has most dismayed the British government about the Chinese contracts isn't the idea that it upsets Britain's scheme to completely destroy Zimbabwe economically, which would bring an end to Mugabe's political future and lead to the resubjugation of Zimbabwe's economy, to serve British interests, (and of course the economic sanctions have brought about widespread hunger in Zimbabwe), what troubles British capitalists the most is the fact that Mugabe is bartering their colonial structure tobacco crops  to pay the Chinese.

What anyone thinks in the West thinks about Robert Mugabe is tempered by the fact that they have probably never heard one positive commentary about the man aside from the fact that he led his nation to independence in 1980.   However, the negative propaganda leveled against the man has been without precedent in recent history.
Indeed, in the inter-imperialist rivalry the imperialist powers realize they have much to lose.

Ken Richard
< < <
Date Index
> > >
World Systems Network List Archives
at CSF
Subscribe to World Systems Network < < <
Thread Index
> > >