lumps in the gravy -- uneveness and interimperialist war

I tend to agree with Chris and others on the continuing saliency of
inter-imperialist war. Many processes have what we would call "logical
conclusions."  One "logical conclusion" of capitalist accumulation and
impoverishment of the working class would seem to be that there would be
just one HUGE working class and one consolidated, world-wide capitalist
class. There appear to be strong indications that this is the trend, and
this view is popular among both conservative and liberal "globalists" as
well as among some Marxists. Lenin debated Rosa Luxemburg and the theory
of "Ultra-imperialism" some seventy years ago over this same question.

BUT, while that process does seem to be rolling along systematically, it
needs to be remembered that all processes have limits. There are many
contradictions inside of different situations, and some might mature
sooner than others, thereby throwing the others "off schedule." It's
been written that if humans lived to be 130 years old, all men would
eventually die of prostate cancer. But obviously, today, other
contradictions generally mature first and prevent that process from
reaching full maturity. So too with internationalization and globalism.
The reality is that the gravy is not homogenized. There are lumps in the
gravy, uneven development, limits to various processes, conflicts
between political and economic needs, political and military needs, even
short term and long term economic needs. These can cause various groups
to come together in new economic/political/military agglomerations. Just
as advanced capitalism might SEEM to eliminate racism by impoverishing
all workers and turning them into a homogenized "dust", so too is the
contradiction of segmented labor markets aggravated, intensifying the
political need to turn worker against worker, hence intensifying racism.

All of this is admittedly abstract. We need particular data, not
dialectical speculation, to help figure out which scenario is more
likely to develop. But we should avoid narrow mechanistic models which
don't take stagnation, limits, feedback loops, structural fragmentation,
and the maturing of different contradictions at different times.
Specifically, it appears that the U.S. will be the center of one
imperialist group, perhaps with Britain. Russia will probably be the
center of another. India MAY ally with Russia. China might wait things
out for a while, but with 25% of the world's population, cannot be
ignored; they might oppose Russia-- might ally with it. Japan also might
wait it out, but would not necessarily be allied with the U.S. center. A
center based on political-Islam could emerge as a cluster of powers,
perhaps tactically allied with the U.S. in the short term, perhaps not.
And of course there's Germany, the industrial and economic engine of
Europe, consolidating its position as head of the European Union -- it's
not a given that they will forever ally with the U.S. especially where
competition for mid=east and Caspian Sea oil is concerned. Other
countries are even making serious inroads in Chase
Manhattan/Rockefeller's own private playground, Latin America, where
German, Japanese, Italian and (surprise!) Chinese investments are taking
root and doubtless building political and maybe military alliances
towards the future. Disintegration is one process/ agglomeration is
another. This is not the first time in history that mighty empires fell.
And new ones emerged, didn't they?

When I was young, I thought the Vietnam versus U.S. model was the way
the world worked. Oppressed good guys fighting rich bad guys. And it
would just be a matter of time and effort before the good guys
outnumbered the bad guys.  Now it's become clearer that there are many
more zigs and zags in the process -- most wars are bad guys against bad
guys. That could be cause for demoralization, believing that the
struggle will take that much longer. Or it could be cause for greater
determination, as we realize what is at stake. We might not be able to
stop the next world war, but we might be able to make a difference in
whether that war kills 200 million people or 2 billion people, and
poisons vast regions of the Earth along the way. And we might be able to
prevent the following world war. But that will take an internationalist
movement, one which rejects ALL nationalism,and an egalitarian movement
(I still like the word "communism" despite its hijacking by liars,
thieves, and gangsters) based on "from each according to ability, to
each according to need." It might seem unrealistic, but no more
unrealistic that another two world wars.

Alan Spector



--