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
|