Re: lumps in the gravy -- uneveness and interimperialist war

Two points to Alan Spectors' post and then a comment. First, he writes
that "nation-states will continue to be a key way that capitalists and
banks will fight it out. And economic struggle becomes political struggle
becomes military struggle." I agree. What I dispute is WHAT they fight it
out against. I doubt that this fight will between "imperial powers." The
state, as well as other sources of elite power, will fight it out against
the working class if they have to, and this was my original point. 

Second, I not believe the time of socialist revolution is at hand. I have
expressed my pessimism about our prospects for this on WSN and PSN on
numerous occasions. What I do believe is that globalization is laying the
objective foundation for global socialist revolution, but for socialist
revolution to actually happen the working and peasant classes must
organize into a revolutionary counterhegemonic force and raise
contradiction to the level of political and cultural-ideological conflict
(and military, if necessary). This is why I stress Marx and Engels' point
that the bourgeois social order makes its own grave diggers, but then add,
the grave diggers have to realize who they are and take up their shovels.
That the globalization of the capitalist mode of production creates the
objective possibility for socialism in no way guarantees socialism -- we
have to make socialism happen.

Finally, I don't mean to be hateful when I criticize the rhetoric of
"imperialism." I just feel that the term "imperialism" (like "fascism") is
thrown around carelessly. I believe we are at a transition point in
world-history where capitalism is being so fundamentally transformed that
it calls into question the utility of the imperialist models. Because of
this we need a new way to talk about the present-day structure and
processes of the capitalist world-economy. Reality never holds still, and
concepts often outgrow their usefulness. I do not for a minute deny that
imperialist and imperialistic relations are still present, I just question
whether the present stage of capitalist development can accurately be
conceptualized as imperialist, if by that term we mean what we are
accustomed to understand. I also believe that the term imperialism is very
often a propaganda point without concern for scientific accuracy. This is
a general reaction, and is not directed specifically at Alan

Peace,
Andy