THE FIGHT AGAINST IMPERIALISM On stark fact about the present world is that the per capita GDP of Mozambique is 84 dollars, and that of Switzerland is 43,400 dollars. In other words the gap between an average Swiss and an average Mozambique citizen is 516 times! Another fact being that the yearly GDP of India is close to half a trillion dollars (with 860 million Indians living on less than 2 dollars a day), where as yearly speculative transaction is this world amount to more than a 1000 trillion dollars. Put differently a years work by the entire Indian work force is not even worth what is bought and sold in the stock markets of the world in less than 3 hours. Life at the beginning of the twenty first century is indeed grim and ironical. Immediately after World War II, Latin America had no debt. Today the Latin Americans owe one trillion dollars to creditors across the ocean. Present levels of total third world debt all ready exceed 2.5 trillion dollars. What is interesting about this debt-ridden world is that in 2000 A.D. reserves worth 727 billion dollars belonging to Central Banks across the globe were kept in the most unimaginable place, the United States of America. In other words instead of using these reserves for their social and economic development poor countries were offering cheap, long term financing to the wealthiest and the most powerful country in the world! Why is it so? Why is the world so horrible? Most well meaning people say it is because of Neo-Liberalisation. We say that’s not true. We say it is mainly because of Imperialism. And when we say that we are not merely playing at words. What we imply is that even if you did not have any neo-liberal economic policies, the world could still be as bad a place to live in if you still had Imperialism. People, who step out to change and reconstruct the world should not confuse structure with policy. What follows is: an attempt to analyze the character of 21st century Imperialism; demystify some of the illusions and prevailing myths; an attempt to define the limitations of various kinds of anti-imperialist tendencies; and lastly an attempt to chalk out a correct anti-imperialist strategy for struggle against Imperialism in the 21st century. THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESENT OPPRESSIVE SYSTEM War, or rather wars of a predatory nature, is a striking aspect of present reality. Despite the fog of lies and concocted excuses, the driving force behind the entire belligerence in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq is clearly visible—it is the scramble for the sources of raw materials. In these particular wars it was oil, but there is no denying the general tendency to take possession of all kinds of raw material sources. There is intense competition among the developed nations for markets. One tendency is to protect and promote the development of their own national and regional markets by forming blocks of continental proportions, for e.g. the European Union or NAFTA. Another being the drive to prise-open the markets of third world countries through various exercises like ‘structural adjustment programme’ or through institutions like the WTO. But despite the intensity of the competition it has still not reached the level where it becomes one of the main driving forces behind predatory war. The instruments being used to wage this competition are still economic and political. The urge to dominate and control is the central aspect of the foreign policies of developed nations. In some it is more pronounced and in the open, for example in the case of USA, Britain or France. In others it is less pronounced and veiled at the movement e.g. Japan or Russia. But there can be no denying its presence. Even in the case of mild states like Norway the urge to dominate and control is clearly discernible, the thrust and the character of Norway’s peace initiates in the Middle East and in Sri Lanka is living proof. This common trait in the foreign policies of developed nations, stretching from states still practicing Social-Democratic policies (although in a squeezed form) to those openly practicing and advocating Neo-Liberalism, is no coincidence. It is part of the basic structure of the present world-system. And it is nothing new. It has been present during the course of entire twentieth century, even during the golden period of Social - Democracy. One characteristic feature of the present world system is that it is run in the interests of monopoly houses, and not in the interests of the working people of the world. Monopolies, which have been in existence for more than a century, play a more and more decisive role in economic life. The concentration of Capital has not stagnated or came to a stop. It continues unabated. Many monopoly houses have even created special ‘acquisition and merger’ departments for this. The series of big mergers and numerous acquisitions that took place in the past ten years show that there are some very basic forces at work, forces that operate under any government policy whatever. This is something structurally in-built into present day capitalism and therefore it is an irreversible trend. Government policy can at the most retard or facilitate the process of monopolization of the capitalist economy system. Secondly it needs to be understood it is not merely the Microsoft’s and the Suzuki’s flourishing in Neo-Liberal environments that drive the system, but that is also the Nokia’s and the houses like Damfoss growing up in Social-Democratic environments who also have stakes in preserving and developing this horribly oppressive system. The second characteristic feature is that the world system is not only run in the interests of industrial monopolies, it is equally good for Banks and other kinds of Financial institutions. In fact there has been an unprecedented merger of these two forms of capital during the last century. Today it is the financial oligarchy that controls the world economic system. The oligarchy is not only made up of mega banks like Citi or Standard Charted, it has also created supra-national institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. These institutions are central to the continuous re-creation of exploitative production relations across the globe, relations that reap super-profits. Another aspect of the life of this financial oligarchy is the glut of non-productive capital at its disposal, prompting many to label present day capitalism as casino capitalism (3 trillion dollars speculative transaction everyday is indeed mind blowing). Many amongst the financial oligarchy thrive merely by clicking at the computer. The Finance bubble is a reality that wrecks and ruins lives in Asia, Africa and Latin America everyday, although the bourgeoisie acknowledge its harmful existence only when there is a burst of the proportions of the South-East Asian crisis in the last 90’s. The third characteristic feature of the world economic system, the export of capital as distinguished from and along with the export of commodities, is something that is generally discussed among pro-people activists. The popular term for the loosening up of national barriers to the export-input of capital, goods and services is ‘Globalization’. There is nothing wrong with the usage of the term as such. But surprisingly there are some mistaken notions associated with it. The most prominent being that it is something ‘new’ i.e. a post-cold war phenomena. Nothing could be further from the truth. Capitalism has always been a globalizing system ever since its birth. It has remained so right through the twentieth century. There are hard facts which put together, make us realize that in the opening decades of the 20th century, world trade and capital flows as a proportion of world production and savings, respectively, were on a scale comparable to today. The second prominent mistaken notion being that globalization is inseparably linked up with neo-liberalism i.e. with the reduction of the role of the state in economic activity, with de-regulation, privatization etc. It is true that this is what is happening at present. But considerable amount of cross-border flows of capital and commodities can take place between state regulated economies, as the experience of the COMECON shows. The third generally mistaken notion being that, globalization per se is bad. The truth is that neither globalization, nor its opposite national protectionism per se is good or bad. The results are good or bad depending on the class controlling the process and that suffering from that process. Present day globalization is bad because it works for the capitalists and wrecks the lives of the working people. In future, in non-capitalist settings, the working people would be the greatest beneficiaries of the dismantling of national barriers. At present globalization means, unequal exchange between the North and the South. At present it means an increase in dependence and lopsided/stunted development for the South. It means increasing Southern debt and increasing the international division of labor in favor of the prosperous North. Therefore the opposition to it. But all said and done, globalization is a structural feature of the present economic system. It is not merely a consequence of bad policy. It is part and parcel of monopoly capitalism. The WTO, created in the mid-nineties is the central supra-national institution created by monopoly houses to promote cross-border flows of capital and commodities. The fourth characteristic feature being the formation of international monopolistic capitalist associations, which share the world amongst themselves. This basic feature has been in existence since the beginning of the 20th century although great political changes took place during that century which time and again disrupted (and at times dismantled) many of the international monopolistic capitalistic associations that had taken shape. Despite such shake up the general drive of the present world economic system leads to tie-ups and efforts to divide and re-divide the markets of the world amongst these associations. Many analysts feel that the coming into existence of such associations means less volatility and more stability for the world economic system. This is not true, the system does not become any bit more stable or peaceful because of such tie-ups. It is so because these associations are themselves the product of strife and struggle within the system, the outcome of cutthroat competition amongst the monopolies, and their birth takes the strife and struggle to a higher level. Despite the division of the world amongst monopolistic associations, there does not exist any territorial division of the world amongst the great powers, as was the scenario till the Second World War. The territorial division of the whole world amongst the biggest capitalist powers is a feature that does not exist anymore. This is a basic structural change that has taken place in world capitalist system in the later half of the 20th century. In too did not take place due to any changes in government policy of the great powers. On the contrary it was the consequence of the national liberation struggles of the peoples of the colonies and semi-colonies plus the worldwide struggles for socialism (some of which were victorious). Actually government policy, in fact, underwent changes in order to contain these struggles and save capitalism in the long run. The retreat of the great powers from the colonies/semi-colonies and social democracy in the west were changes in government policy consequent to these great struggles. Monopoly Capitalism still retains the urge to dominate and annex territory i.e. to re-colonize the world, but it has to balance its policy with the heightened consciousness of the masses. Put in other words pro-people forces need to take cognizance of the fact that despite the urge to annex territory, the great powers can not create stablecolonies as the experience of Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq proves. This is a great advance and it has undermined the world capitalist order at the structural level. There is no denying the fact that the phase of direct colonialism is over, phase of neo-colonialism is also over (although remnants of this order still exist in certain parts of the world), and in its retreat monopoly capitalism is trying to impose and consolidate an economic neo-colonial order. Returning to our initial argument we need to state that what pro-people forces across the world are against is not mere government policy. The struggle is against something more basic and something more sinister. It is against an entire structure called Imperialism, which is a definite stage in the development of capitalism, the stage beyond Laissez-faire, a capitalism based on monopolies. Neo-liberal or social-democratic or other sorts of government policy operate within the framework of Imperialism and they all work to reinforce it in their own ways. Changes in government policy do not end the oppression, nor can we categorically say that Imperialism will be less oppressive under one kind of government policy and more under another. Given a further disorientation and retreat of the working class movement (and of its allies), it is possible that Imperialism reverting to ‘state regulation of the market’ (in an attempt to resolve some of its contradictions) could be more oppressive than Imperialism with a Neo-Liberal policy — the world has seen this brand of Imperialism during the Breznev era. On the other hand, oppression does lessen to the extent the structure of Imperialism is undermined. The 20th century, especially its later half, has been witness to such an undermining of Imperialism and a lessening of peoples oppression. National Liberation Struggles, supported by the Socialist Movement wiped out direct colonialism. Imperialism had to retreat to less oppressive forms — first neo-colonialism and then economic-new colonialism during the last quarter of the 20th century. If the oppression of the people of the world started increasing in the 90’s, this was primarily because of the new offensive that American and Western Imperialism launched at the end of the Soviet era taking advantage of the disorganized state of the movement of the working-class and its allies. Neo-Liberalism was merely a form that the offensive took. Given a different situation, it could have adopted a different set of policies, may be some advocating more government regulation of the economy or even complete Nationalization. Therefore the strategy for a successful struggle against oppression should be based on a broader comprehension of the system. It should not be restricted to the struggle against some momentary government policy. What is worrying is that very often we find tendencies in the peoples movement that pursue an even more restricted agenda, they confine their struggle to only one aspect of government policy say for example debt. This is indeed worrying because Imperialism can very easily make tactical shifts and make the entire mobilization meaningless. It has been seen in the case of India and in the case of other countries as well that in the 90’s. Imperialism did not stick to the export of capital in the form of loans, that it in fact went easy on loans and exported capital in the form of FDI and FPI i.e. the significance of foreign debt as the target of peoples attack has been reduced due to a tactical shift within the Neo-Liberal offensive. Before tackling some illusions and myths about Imperialism, we need to take cognizance of another aspect of Imperialism. Like war, crisis is also in-built in the very structure of Imperialism. One cannot get rid of war without getting rid of Imperialism. Similarly one cannot get rid of crises and the havoc they create, without getting rid of Imperialism. The normal business cycle i.e. recessions (in which the major factor is over production causing factories to severely reduce production and employments) followed by an upturn in which excess inventories are sold off, is no specificity of Imperialism. It has been going on for close to 200 years. The specificity of Imperialism is the systemic crisis i.e. low growth rates, under utilization of capacity, under utilization of scientific/ technological potential, extremely lop sided development, chronic unemployment, decay and decadence etc. The systemic crises are part and parcel of Imperialism. It is only in situations arising out of a rare combination of factors that Imperialism has had unique periods of crises-free development. The period after World War II till 1973 was one such rare period for Japan, Western Europe and North America. Otherwise, systemic crises has been part and parcel of Imperialist system right from the beginning of the 20th century right into the 21st. Therefore once again, any struggle that wants to ensure progress and happiness for humanity has to be a struggle against the basic structure of Imperialism. But this struggle against the basic structure of Imperialism cannot be a repetition (in content and form, both) of the anti-imperialist struggles of the 20th century. It has to take into cognizance the specific peculiarities of the present phase of Imperialism; a phase that ought to be formulated as the phase of economic neo-colonialism. The specificity of this phase being —— The existence, after the end of direct colonialism, of a few imperialist countries and a complete chain of dependent countries. Not only are third world countries a part of this chain, developed but weak capitalist countries are also a part of the chain. Third world countries in spite of their existence with in the Imperialist framework are politically independent. Although Imperialism exerts a lot of pressure to undermine this freedom, it still exists in the main. The main mechanism for exploiting these countries, and for extracting super profits, is not direct political rule (colonialism) or indirect political control (semi-colony or neo-colony), it is economic. Imperialism exploits these countries and extracts super profits from them by virtue of the enormous gap in the level of development of its productive forces and those of these countries. Imperialism has been pushed into this phase against its wish. It still retains the desire to achieve all-round (political, military, economic) domination. Therefore despite the mode of exploitation being mainly economic in this phase; Imperialism does not let go any opportunity to use its political and military instruments. Imperialism does not go to the third world to develop it. Its objective is plunder. Development, whatever lopsided, distorted development that takes place in the third world is a by-product of this endeavor. The bourgeoisie of the third world has become a junior partner of Imperialism in this loot. No section of the third world bourgeoisie stands opposed to this loot. The entire bourgeoisie in most third world countries has exhausted its progressive role, it has become reactionary. The third world bourgeoisie gets its share (in proportion to the strength of its capital) in the surplus accumulation that is taking place at the global level. The third world bourgeoisie has displaced the feudal classes and tribal elites as the social-prop of Imperialism. But despite this, it is not a comprador, it is the junior partner of Imperialism i.e. it’s not dependent on Imperialism for its very existence, and it maintains an independent contradiction with Imperialism. All though there are no more direct colonies in the world (baring temporary exceptions like present day Iraq), there are still certain remnants of neo-colonialism in the 21st century; countries like East Timor, Philippines, Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, and many countries in the Caribbean are remnants of neo-colonialism. Neo-colonialism, in its diminished state exists alongside of Economic Neo-colonialism as a form of Imperialism in the 21st century. CERTAIN MYTHS AND ILLUSIONS ABOUT IMPERIALISM The need to pick up (and talk about) myths and illusions related to Imperialism, arises out of the fact that any strategy capable of successfully undermining and ultimately abolishing Imperialism has to based on objectivity and it requires clarity of thought. Monopoly capitalists have the utmost stake in protecting and developing their system. They understand the significance of ideological hegemony, propaganda and deception. They have many intellectuals working at deliberately spreading misconceptions, myths and lies about the system. Preparations for any viable struggle against Imperialism require that this fog be cleared. It is argued by many activists in progressive movements that, at present, Imperialism is not passing through any general systemic crises. They argue that after the Second World War, Imperialism made certain basic changes/improvements in its system, which have helped prevent systemic crisis and thereby thwart revolution. Amongst these changes/improvements the most significant is the creation of supra-national regulatory institutions like the World Bank and the IMF (and later the WTO). They say that after World War II, Imperialism has been sailing smoothly and that even the crisis that began in 1973 was not a systemic crisis, that even this crisis dissipated by the beginning of the 80’s. They further claim that these improvements have been so effective that Imperialists have even been able to recover ground they lost to the Socialists. There are others who theorize that in the post-soviet era ‘globalization of production and consumption have reduced the volatility of economic activity in the industrialized world’. Worldwide Computer networking for these people, is one mechanism by which crisis can be contained. In the first place it is not correct to claim that Imperialism is not passing through any general systemic crisis, that even the crisis that began in 1973 dissipated by the beginning of the 80’s. A casual glance at per capital GDP growth rates is quite revealing. Table 1. Annual Growth in Real GDP per Capita (percent) YEARS UNITED STATES EUROPE WORLD 1870 – 1913 1.82 1.32 1.30 1913 – 1950 1.61 0.76 0.91 1950 – 1973 2.45 4.08 2.93 1973 – 1998 1.99 1.78 1.33 [Source: Monthly Review, Vol. 54, No.6, pp: 35] The data in Table No.1 paint a very pessimistic picture of 20th century capitalism. They describe it as a low growth system in general, punctuated by two and a half decades of fast paced growth after the Second World War. It is in fact the quarter-century before 1973 that stands out as unique. There has been talk that, if, since 1970 National Consumption can double; then all talk of general systemic crisis in this period, is incorrect. There is no doubt that developed countries have actually witnessed such leaps in consumption levels. But what needs to be understood is that this leap in consumption is no indication of the absence of crisis. Actually increase in real consumption per person has co-existed with stagnating real wages. This gets explained by the increase in working hours, having more family members (spouses, students) work, increase in household debt. etc. Secondly it needs to be accepted that within a general crisis, there can be sharp dips and periodic booms; spurts in the American or Japanese economy in certain years do not lead us to the conclusion that there is no general stagnation. Whatever changes or ‘improvements’, Monopoly Capitalists may have tried to introduce, the effect is not there to see. In fact in the last quarter of the 20th century when a large number of economies started following IMF advises, when a number of erstwhile socialist economies started reducing state-ownership (a change that strengthened Imperialism) and started pursuing open market capitalism, when an additional institution like the WTO came into existence; the world economy instead of picking up actually slowed down. So rather than serve as instruments for capping the emergence of systemic crisis, we find that despite a favorable political situation and more options at hand, all these changes/‘improvements’ have failed at this very task. As far as the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe (which began in 1956) is concerned, most serious analysts do not state the existence of crisis free Imperialism as a major reason for this. Most serious analysts agree that major reasons for this debacle are internal sabotage, the failure to understand the transitory nature of socialist society and one-sided emphasis on the development of productive forces, the economic and social backwardness of these countries etc. A long boom in the 50’s and 60’s is seldom cited as a major reason for Socialists loosing ground to Imperialists. The logic that the globalization of production/consumption, computer networking etc. act as factors reducing the volatility of the economic system is equally flowed. Increased transnational economic activity does not mean that the laws of motion of the system have been dispensed with and that capitalism has transcended its contradictions. Rather the more globalized the system, the greater the danger of global waves of crisis. This was quite evident during the Southeast Asian crisis at the end of the 90’s. A crisis originating in one country developed into a regional crisis within no time, and it had global ramifications. The system grows jitterier with each passing day. An extreme, opposite, view of the things is that crisis in the Imperialist system will develop to the point where the system will collapse under its own weight. A corollary thesis being that when crisis aggravate to a pitch, it will give rise to spontaneous movements of the working-class and the peoples of the world, leading to a change of system. This view is equally dangerous. Capitalism is the last system that develops and reproduces private property. Beyond capitalism, any new system that is to emerge will be a system that begins to negate private property. This is a very fundamental change, something qualitatively different from what has been witnessed so far by human history right up to the era of Imperialism. It cannot be a blind change, because it is not the replacement of one system of private property by another. It is the negation of the entire set of systems of private property. The propertied classes will fight to their last to save capitalism, and they have the inertia of history behind them. Since it is something entirely new, something that people are not used to, therefore the socialization of wealth (of production relations) has to be a very conscious process. It has to be pre-planned and its execution continuously summed up. The recent experience of the extreme nationwide crisis in Argentina shows that the crisis did not lead to capitalism collapsing under its own weight, there weren’t even signs of this. Therefore the theory of economic breakdown of capitalism is wrong. The Argentine crisis also shows that despite spontaneously arousing the working people, and giving birth to militant movements, Socialism was nowhere in sight. Although it was an extreme and grave crisis, Capitalism managed to stabilize the situation because Argentina in 2000-2001 (unlike Russia in 1917) did not have a revolutionary party. The Argentine experience also shows that social crisis do not spontaneously create revolutionary parties. What it proves once again is that if a revolutionary party had been painstakingly, conscious built in the 80’s and 90’s, it could have taken advantage of the extraordinary situation in 2000-2001, it could have captured power and begun the building of the socialist order. To conclude we need to say that Imperialism is moribund, decaying capitalism. It is an extremely crisis prone system. It raises the contradictions of capitalism to an extremely high pitch. Therefore it is the eve of proletarian revolutions. But crisis do not make revolutions on their own. Proletarian revolutions require seasoned revolutionary parties, not merely trade unions or social organizations of the people. Crises create revolutionary situations but they do not give birth to anti-capitalist systems. Should ‘Back to Keynesianism’ be the slogan for people whose lives are ruined by the Imperialist offensive? There is no denying the fact that the living and working conditions for the masses were better a decade or two back, that market fundamentalism (which goes under various brand names such as Neo-Liberalism, ‘Washington Consensus, New Economic Policy or Reform programme in India) imposed worldwide through the IMF or WB has forced immense social, environmental, health, educational, cultural sacrifices on the people. There can be no denying that today there is more instability in national economies, more speculation, more external debt and the inequity in exchange between nations has increased. But all this does not make the case for ‘Back to Keynesianism’ being the central slogan for people’s movements. Reviewing history, one finds that Keynesianism has never been the demand of the struggling masses. Keynesianism has been the response of the ruling classes to the offensive of the masses. Partly Keynesianism has been a mid-way compromise that the ruling class offered in order to prevent revolution, partly it was an attempt to kick-start crisis ridden economies. Keynesianism was put into practice more than half a century back. Today the level of socialization of the productive forces is higher that it was half a century back. Today the material basis for negating Imperialism and private appropriation of surplus value is more developed. Therefore there is no point in demanding that the state regulate capitalist economies, that Capitalists and Imperialists be allowed to rule in a less rowdy manner. The slogans of the struggling masses should be ‘Down with Imperialism’, ‘Down with Capitalism’. Secondly, it needs to be conceded and recognized that even in the absence of a people’s movement there are chances that the ruling classes can opt for more state regulation of their economies. Rampant stock market swindling, anarchic conditions in the market, money laundering etc. could in themselves be catalysts for state-regulatory measures. In certain conditions even nationalization of certain private assets is conceivable. Therefore what is a ruling class programme (in content and in form, both) should not be made the slogan of a people’s movement. By doing so the organizers of the movement limit the potential of the struggle, they prevent the people from achieving what could be achieved. Although there have been voices raising the demand for making institutions like the World Bank, IMF and the WTO more democratic and more responsive to human needs, a substantial section of the progressive movements stand for the outright abolition of these institutions. The demand for abolition of these institutions is correct. But the reasons cited for the demand are often not so sound. Many people argue that these institutions should be abolished because they are useless that they do not do the work they are meant to do. For example the argument that ‘80% of World Bank resources have gone, not to poor countries with poor credit ratings and investment ratings, but to countries that could have raised the money in international private capital markets owing to their having investment grade or high yield ratings. In terms of achieving a positive development impact, the Bank’s own evaluation of its projects shows an outstanding 55-60 percent failure rate. The failure rate is particularly high in the poorest countries.........’ [Walden Bello’s argument as quoted in Monthly Review, Vol. 52, No.3, pp: 135], is basically an argument that says the Bank should be broken down because it does not deliver. Similar arguments are given that the IMF should de-funded because it does not solve ‘balance of payment problems’ but it only aggravates them in the long run etc. etc. Conversely the logic implies that had the Bank & the Fund delivered, they would have the right to exist. This unfortunately is not good reasoning. Any demand for the abolition of institutions like the WB should not rest on such ground. This ground is too weak. It will cave-in under the pressure of struggle and will reduce the demand from abolition to reform of the WB/IMF/WTO. This is so because the class character and real functions of these institutions are overlooked. The WB, the IMF and the WTO are bad institutions because they reproduce imperialist relations, and because they do this work very well. They increase dependence, they ease the extraction of super profits, they increase inequality in world trade, they ease out conduits for the export of capital, they facilitate the recovery of debts etc. The WB/IMF/WTO are creations of the Imperialist class. They serve the class-interests of the Imperialists, that’s why they are bad and that’s why they should be abolished. Had these institutions not served the class-interests of the Imperialists, the Imperialists would have dumped them long back or would have ‘reformed’ them as they reformed the GATT. It is not even correct to think that the WB/IMF/WTO are useless for the poor. What is useless can be ignored. These institutions harm the poor. They are oppressive institutions. The theory of ‘uselessness’ of these institutions blurs the contradiction between Imperialism and the working people. It serves to prolong the life of this exploitative system. Therefore it should be discarded and a more class-conscious position adopted. There is talk that as globalization advances, national boundaries will became more and more porous till they dissolve, and the role of the state will shrink further and further until it becomes something like a powerless state. People who hold such positions generally see globalization as some sort of a road-roller that will crush the soldier and the bureaucrat. Such people are also of the opinion that pre-globalization era concepts of the nation, of the social role of the state, of class-identities and class struggle will became redundant in a few decades of globalization. This is a very idealistic view of the social institutions and of history. Things that come into being do pass away into oblivion. But their withering away requires the fulfillment of certain pre-conditions. One of the pre-conditions for the withering away of categories like the nation, the state, class struggle, class-identity etc. is the socialization of the economic system to a very high degree. The present production system is based on non-socialist relations permitting & promoting private appropriation. The capitalists require a market and they require a powerful state apparatus to suppress the laboring people. As long as private property exists in any form (crude or sophisticated, open or veiled) classes will exist and the struggle between them will be the main propeller of history. If the pre-condition for their withering away (advanced socialism) is not met, then all talk of the dissolution of national boundaries, or the state transforming itself into a powerless state is hoax. Without a repressive apparatus (the powerful state), the minority (capitalists) cannot rule over the majority (the working masses). In the present phase of globalization, a phase in which globalization is advancing under neo-liberal policies, all that is happening is that the state is withdrawing from economic activity. Even this withdrawal is partial. In all probability it is temporary as well. Excited by this partial withdrawal of the state from economic activity (not from the social or political spheres), talk about the emergence of the powerless state is mere daydreaming; it is not objective analysis. A corollary thesis is the idea that today; there are no oppressed countries/nations, that there are only oppressed peoples (within nations/countries). At first sight this position appears simply a matter of correct or incorrect judgment. But it is not as simple as that. The formulation that there aren’t any oppressed countries/nations in the world today obfuscates the real oppressive character of the Imperialist system. It makes Imperialism look less ferocious. It covers up the undemocratic character of the world state system. The string of military bases that Imperialist countries maintain all over the globe, political-military associations like NATO, humiliating treaties/agreements like CTBT, the privileges of the Security Council within the UN, embargoes and diplomatic isolation of various sorts, political dictation... are measures for the oppression of countries/nations as countries and nations. As long as a set-up of this kind exists it cannot be said that complete democracy prevails in inter-state relations and there aren’t any oppressed nations/countries. DIFFERENT SHADES IN THE ANTI-IMPERIALIST MOVEMENT The anti-imperialist movement is not a cohesive whole. It has a very diffused character. It ranges from sections having very radical politics to some who even think that the use of the term ‘Imperialism’ is unnecessary rhetoric. The diffused state of the movement is something that is bad for the people, and good for the ruling classes. The task of uniting the movement along a central strategy and around some key slogans lies before us. It can be achieved through internal debate and struggle within the movement. But this requires persistent, and at times stubborn effort. One of the objectives behind the paper is to make an attempt in this direction. We need to be clear that this requires an exposure of the limitation and inconsistencies of the important strategic lines operating within the movement. This is a heart-burning task, but a task that has to be carried out for the greater common good. Apart from the general ‘Back to Keynesianism’ type of Social Democracy discussed earlier, there exists a reformist trend, which advocates economic quarantine for nations. Stung and shaken-up by the ill effects of Globalization, many people believe that the days of economic nationalism were good old days. It was understandable that after a phase of autarkic nation building in the third world, there would be opposition to globalization from this angle. But we find that advocates of economic quarantine are not confined to the third world. With more outsourcing of manufacturing and services from the developed west to cheap labor markets in the third world, there are a large number of people in the west who are demanding stringent laws and changes in government policy so as to check the flow of jobs to foreigners. What it all amounts to is a knee-jerk reaction to the all round Imperialist assault. It needs to be understood that even in situations where there is no displacement of jobs from one work site to another, the ruling classes are accelerating things at the work place and retrenching part of the work force. Secondly as part of their moves to cope with their crisis, the ruling classes are doing a lot of re-organization of the work-process, which is resulting in loss of employment. Thirdly even if there is no re-organization of the work-process the capitalists are taking advantage of the weakness of the workers movement and replacing higher paid workers by new low paid workers. Therefore economic quarantine of national economies is not the solution to the problem. The problem itself has many more dimensions, and is of much larger proportions that what most advocates of economic quarantine realize. Its origin is not merely the opening up of national frontiers. It originates in the all round assault of the ruling classes. Therefore without chalking out a strategy to fight back the all-round offensive of Imperialism, the menace of unemployment cannot be tackled. To repeat, demands for patch-up reform cannot make up for a situation that demands all out class struggle. Some years back Mr. Tobin prepared a proposal for a 0.1% tax on all speculative financial transactions. Following his lead in 2000 A.D, the President of Cuba, Fidel Castro, proposed at the South Summit that the proposal should be a minimum of 1% tax on all speculative financial transactions. Fidel argued that this world creates a large indispensable fund — in excess of one trillion dollars every year — to promote real, sustainable, and comprehensive development in the third world. Well, one trillion dollars is indeed a lot of money. But how are the people of the world going to get it? Obviously through struggle, asking for it or begging for it won’t make Imperialists and their governments loosen up their purses. The fundamental question over here is that if the people have to fight for something, and they have to make sacrifices in order to achieve their objective, why should the fight only to get hold of 1% of speculative transaction money and why not for the whole of the surplus that Imperialists and Capitalists appropriate? Why should the people lower their target, if they decide to struggle? This is just like telling the people of a colony not to fight for complete independence but for dominion status under the common wealth of the colonizer. The point is that one should not rule out the possibility of a compromise in the course of a struggle, so as to re-organize ones forces and press on with the struggle later on, but one does not begin the struggle with a compromising demand. When initiating a struggle i.e. mobilizing the forces for the struggle, the complete demand should be unequivocally stated. Mr. Tobins proposed or Fidel Castro’s proposal for taxing speculative financial transactions, pre-supposes the condition that speculative financial transactions should be allowed to go on, that capitalists should be allowed to gamble with the surplus that they have appropriated from the people. Such sort of anti-imperialist politics is an apology for Imperialism. Another misguided trend in the anti-imperialist movement is ‘Single Issue Politics’. Many people create platforms/organizations for propaganda (and even agitation) on single issues such as debt, war etc. They define that these single-issue platforms will not take up any other issue other than the issue for which they are created. In their good intent they feel that platforms that do propaganda and agitation on more than one peoples’ issue are ineffective because they spread out the fire and dissipate the energy of the combatants. The effectiveness of single-issue platforms compared to general anti-imperialist platforms in organizing and developing a struggle is yet to be proved in practice. But there is scope for a theoretical debate over this tactical line. Efforts should always be made to resolve differences in the theoretical plane, rather than shove their resolution into the more complex arena of practical struggles. The principal argument against single-issue platforms is that it is wrong to compartmentalize different aspects of the Imperialist problem because they are in reality, inseparable. The attempt at clear cut differentiation of military, political and economic issues (and further sub-differentiation within these categories) leads to ignoring what is not essential: the interdependence and mutual interaction of these factors. Imperialism is one composite whole. Debt, Foreign Portfolio Investment, Foreign Direct Investment, Unequal exchange, Royalties, Indemnities etc., are various mechanism for appropriating surplus value. Signaling out one and closing ones eyes to other forms of appropriation of surplus value is not sound tactics. The objective of the peoples platform should be ending the appropriation of surplus value and it should not overlook any kind of surplus appropriating mechanism. If the demon is to be defeated, one should not plan merely in terms of knocking out its teeth or chopping of its tongue. A tongue less demon is as bad as a demon with a tongue. The demon needs to be killed. Taking a more generalized view of the anti-imperialist movement we find that in recent years it has been organized around two main axes; the anti-corporate globalization movement and the anti-war movement. Any great historical movement does develop around certain concrete issues and on some key slogans. So there is nothing wrong in, anti-imperialist sentiments of the people finding expression in anti-war or anti-globalization issues. That is exactly what is required. What is lacking is political leadership. A movement that is spread out in such huge proportions requires depth to sustain itself over a long period. If it does not acquire depth, its vigor will fizzle out as spontaneously as it appeared. Imperialists being seasoned, formidable opponents are always ready to play the waiting game. Therefore it is up to the activists and organizers to politically consolidate the masses that have stepped out into the streets, otherwise after sometime they will begin loosing interests and they will go back to their homes. Activist and organizers, who do not want to be left alone, need to do a lot of general propaganda work besides their agitational activities. The propagandists need to link up the existence of corporate houses with the existences of capitalism in general. They need to explain and elaborate how capitalist profits, rents, interests, royalties are in fact wealth that has been appropriated from the workers; that corporate super-profits arise out this general foundation of capitalist political economy at a certain stage of its development; and that all swindling, speculation, corruption exists on top of this legalized theft of the workers labor. They need to explain that constitutions, courts, bureaucrats, police men, armed forces, political institutions etc. exist mainly to keep this legalized plunder of the labor of working people going and it is this basis that decides their character. They need to explain that social institutions like religion, caste, racism, patriarchy etc. also work to preserve the class-rule of the capitalist, and thus their right to appropriate profits & super-profits. Therefore it is a whole system that is oppressing the working people, which is responsible for all the poverty, destitution and indignity. And therefore if we want to get rid of the havoc that corporate houses create, we will have to fight to change the entire system. That in the 21st century if there is to be capitalism, it will inevitable contain monopolies. Similarly activists and organizers need to seriously work at broadening peoples understanding about wars in the era of monopoly capitalism. It needs to be pointed out and elaborated that wars (specially big wars) in the 20th and 21st centuries are not merely the result of government policies or the whims of Presidents and Prime Ministers. These factors do have a role in the choice and timing of wars, but the inner dynamism of monopoly capitalism inevitable keeps on generating wars, and as long as monopoly capitalism (Imperialism) exists, there will be wars over markets, wars over the sources of raw materials, wars to line up political regimes that don’t fit into the Imperialist scheme of things, wars to keep the military equipment industries running...Therefore if we are not against one particular war, but are against all kinds of predatory wars we will have to get rid of the Imperialist systems as such. This will not only demand peace marches and demonstrations, but beyond a point it will demand that people pick up arms to fight a liberation war to get rid of this wretched war manufacturing system. Secondly it needs to be pointed out and elaborated that even when the Imperialists are not waging war, they still engage in National oppression by various kinds of threats and military treaties/organizations specially created to bully weaker nations. That it is not merely death that is bad; life under the heel of the Imperial jackboot is also horrible. One other expression of the constricted shape of the present anti-imperialist movement is the almost exclusive attack on American Imperialism. There is no doubt that the American ruling class is the leader of the World Imperialist System. But this does not mean that other Imperialist powers are less lethal or kinder. Other Imperialists powers like France, Germany, Russia, Britain, Japan etc. are qualitatively as bad as the U.S.A. What separates USA from the rest of the pack is that the US is more armed and bigger in a quantitative sense. Less than a century back, Britain occupied the same leadership position that the U.S. occupies today. When Britain weakened as a consequence of the anti-colonial movement and the infighting amongst the Imperialists, the USA stepped out to take its place. This shows that Imperialism is like a big Octopus, and that undermining or even getting rid of one of its arms (even its strongest arm) does not solve the problem; the whole beast has to be killed. Put squarely this means that strategies that are aimed exclusively at American Imperialism or slightly broader strategic plans that target the Anglo-American Imperialist combine are not adequate. Imperialism as a system has to be targeted. This does not mean that differences and contradictions between various Imperialist powers should not be exploited. But it needs to be understood that the cunning use of inter-Imperialist contradiction should be limited to tactics within the broad strategic plan of eliminating Imperialism as a system. Platforms/Organizations created to take on Imperialism should be structured to eliminate Imperialism as a system and not merely one brand of Imperialism. THE FIGHT AGAINST IMPERIALISM IN THE 21st CENTURY The fight against Imperialism in the 21st century will be different from 20th century anti-imperialism in many respects. 20th century anti-Imperialism was a blend of two different kinds of class-movements — One, the anti-imperialist movement with a proletarian leadership. The struggles in China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos... are shinning examples of this kind. Two, the anti-imperialist movement with a bourgeoisie-reformist leadership. Again there were two distinct shades with in this. The first being, one in which the character of the leadership was out rightly bourgeoisie as in the case of India or Indonesia. The second being the case where the leadership was in the hands of a more militant petty-bourgeoisie, for example Tanzania, Zimbabwe etc. 21st century anti-imperialism will not be a blend of these kinds of class-movements. Its character will pronouncedly proletarian. This being so because after victory in the anti-colonial struggles the bourgeoisie came to power in these erstwhile colonies. Even in countries where the national movements were led by the petty-bourgeoisie, the end-result was the construction of the bourgeoisie order, which led to the bourgeoisiefication of the petty-bourgeoisie. Their stay in power has not been short. It has been spread out over decades. The new rulers have had considerable time to settle in. And they have utilized this time in developing life styles, habits, economic models and plans that ape the west. They couldn’t have done otherwise; they did not make a complete rupture with Imperialism. They confined their independence movements, to political independence within the Imperialist framework. The domestic systems that were developed after the retreat of the colonizers were basically bourgeoisie systems i.e. they were set ups that permitted the exploitation of man by man and promoted the extraction of surplus value and the accumulation of capital. That such domestic systems would develop innumerable ties with Imperialism was a forgone conclusion. Despite their national oppression within the Imperialist framework, these new rulers choose to stay within the Imperialist framework because they do not want to dismantle their domestic bourgeoisie orders and put up Socialism. In other words, after the anti colonial nationalist struggles, the bourgeoisie has exhausted its historic potential. It can not rise to smash the Imperialist frame work, it can not even bring itself to the point of walking out of that framework, it has accepted its place as a junior-partner in that framework. It is now only the proletariat, under whose leadership the downtrodden masses can defeat and eliminate Imperialism. Put differently, we imply that the age of the Sun-yat-sens, the Gandhis, the Nelson Mandelas and Robert Mughabes is over. 21st century history will not produce this brand of leaders. Men like Ho-Chi-Minh and Che will lead soul-stirring anti-imperialist struggles of the 21st century, and the masses will rally around compact organizations of the Viet-min type. The banner that the masses hold will say Without Challenging Capitalism, You can not defeat Imperialism! The 20th century proved to be century in which the struggling people undermined Imperialism, they managed to weaken it considerably. The 21st century will be a century in which the toiling masses will rise to smash Imperialism, along with all its military bases, tactics, international institutions, laws... The strategic slogan of the masses in this century will be ‘Smash Imperialism’. It will apply to international institutions, treaties, the military set-up of Imperialism, Imperialist culture, the Imperial right to extract super-profits and other facets of the Imperialist economic system, to everything that produces and re-produces Imperialist relations. Within this broad strategic slogan, there will off course be tactical slogans depending on specific situations in different countries of the world i.e. national peculiarities, level of development of the peoples’ struggle, the state of the enemy forces etc. The character of these anti-imperialist struggles will be internationalist and not nationalist. However their form will be national. The form cannot be internationalist like its content because the world system is organized as a chain of nation-states, which cannot be wished away. Therefore in order to fullfil their internationalist duties, the people of particular countries will have to defeat their domestic bourgeoisie and capture power in their respective countries. Given this organization of the international state-system, it is not possible to have a simultaneous world revolution. Revolutions in the 21st century will still be separated in time and space, although their influence on each other will be far more than what it was in the 20th century. Mammoth demonstrations on February 15th, 2003 against imperialist intervention in Iraq have sounded the tocsin for an anti-imperialist 21st century. The internationalist character of these anti-war demonstrations, and their physical spread over almost the whole globe gives an indication of what kind of a century it will turn out to be. We will be witness to, and participants in some of the greatest and the most humanizing struggles in history. PRESENTED FIRST TIME ON 26 MAY 2007 Posted by Krantikari Lok Adhikar Sangathan at 6:48 AM No comments: Links to this post Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest Tuesday, April 29, 2014 international workers day long live !!! International workers day !! on the eve of 1 MAY ( WORKER DAY ) there is a campaign
Posted on: Sat, 24 May 2014 08:21:18 +0000