[Debate] Arguing Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism

[Riaz K Tayob]

The Luxemburgist thesis is contested - albeit I find it most useful in 
the challenges we face. Some Marxists dispute the reasoning of RL based 
on the fact that she argued on the theoretical basis of the realisation 
problem, which effectively put international relations into the paradigm 
of "unequal exchange" - instead of the emphasis on finance. So this 
nuance is important.

Aside from this issue is what degree of autonomy does Mugabe have in the 
face of cosmopolitan neoliberal Global Finance hegemony? Can Mugabe be 
likened to Greece in some ways?

Where I agree is that some of the pbs are more radical than many 
leftists, given the configuration of power relations... but if the MDC 
receives some tacit support as against ZANU then I wonder what 
differentiates the right-wing Muslim Brotherhood from such support?


On 2012/07/10 10:47 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:
> Is 'imperialism' read as North versus South, as did Lenin, Bukharin,
> etc... or capitalism v non-capitalism as did Luxemburg? If one chooses
> the latter, more durable version, then it's very easy to read Robert
> Mugabe (for instance) as a very worthy local comprador of
> imperialism-writ-large, especially when in 1995 he was awarded the
> highest-possible rating by the World Bank for imposing structural
> adjustment on his povo. If one goes with Luxemburg's framing, the
> democrats fighting Mugabe - no matter that many are petit-bourgeois -
> are potentially far more radical. I certainly felt that in 2005-06 when
> Mugabe spent $210 mn of hard currency that Zim didn't have (they printed
> their own and sold it on the black market, causing a huge inflation
> spike), thus repaying the IMF so as to stay in the imperialists' club.
>
> On 7/8/2012 8:19 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>> For leftists to consider whether programmatic opposition to
>> imperialism makes sense, I think we should focus on different
>> questions than what commonly preoccupies many leftists now in
>> consideration of particular positions to be adopted in particular
>> cases.
>>
>> Among the first questions to be asked are, e.g.:
>>
>> Is imperialism a matter of policy which can be abolished by choosing
>> different political representatives while leaving the capitalist class
>> and capitalism as a mode of production intact, or does capitalism as a
>> mode of production necessarily give rise to imperialism?  If it is the
>> former, programmatic opposition to imperialism may not make sense; it
>> it is the latter, it may.  If imperialism is about policy, on
>> sometimes, off sometimes, depending on who's in government, opposition
>> to that, too, may also be on sometimes, off sometimes.  If imperialism
>> is constant, though, so should be opposition to it.
>>
>> Is your anti-imperialism an integral part of your overall political
>> program -- such as communism -- the achievement of which necessarily
>> demands constant opposition to it since imperialists are implacably
>> opposed to it?  Or is your anti-imperialism a position you adopt only
>> when you believe a particular policy pursued by imperialists will
>> produce negative results for other people you happen to care about?
>> In the former case, anti-imperialism is programmatic; in the latter
>> case, it's case-by-case.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
>> Date: Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Debate] (Fwd) Here we go again (Zapiro)
>>
>> Can you tease this one out for us please?
>>
>> On 2012/07/08 06:31 AM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>>> I personally do not believe
>>> there is a very good argument against programmatic -- as opposed to ad
>>> hoc -- opposition to imperialism.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debate-list mailing list
> Debate-list at fahamu.org
> http://lists.fahamu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debate-list
>