Global Learning
  • Home
  • Defenders of Cuban Socialism
    • UN Charter
    • Declaration of Human Rights
    • Bandung
    • New International Economic Order
    • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Substack editorial column
  • New Cold War articles
  • Friends of Socialist China articles
  • Global Research articles
  • Counterpunch articles
  • Cuba and the world-system
    • Table of Contents and chapter summaries
    • About the author
    • Endorsements
    • Obtaining your copy
  • Blog ¨The View from the South¨
    • Blog Index
    • Posts in reverse chronological order
  • The Voice of Third World Leaders
    • Asia >
      • Ho Chi Minh
      • Xi Jinping, President of China
    • Africa >
      • Kwame Nkrumah
      • Julius Nyerere
    • Latin America >
      • Fidel Castro
      • Hugo Chávez
      • Raúl Castro >
        • 55th anniversary speech, January 1, 1914
        • Opening Speech, CELAC
        • Address at G-77, June 15, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, July 5, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, December 20, 2014
        • Speech on Venezuela at ALBA, 3-17-2015
        • Declaration of December 18, 2015 on USA-Cuba relations
        • Speech at ALBA, March 5, 2018
      • Miguel Díaz-Canel >
        • UN address, September 26, 2018
        • 100th annivesary, CP of China
      • Evo Morales >
        • About Evo Morales
        • Address to G-77 plus China, January 8, 2014
        • Address to UN General Assembly, September 24, 2014
      • Rafael Correa >
        • About Rafael Correa
        • Speech at CELAC 1/29/2015
        • Speech at Summit of the Americas 2015
      • Nicolás Maduro
      • Cristina Fernández
      • Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations >
        • Statement at re-opening of Cuban Embassy in USA, June 20, 2015
        • The visit of Barack Obama to Cuba
        • Declaration on parliamentary coup in Brazil, August 31, 2016
        • Declaration of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba on Venezuela, April 13, 2019
      • ALBA >
        • Declaration of ALBA Political Council, May 21, 2019
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 17, 2015
        • Declaration on Venezuela, April 10, 2017
      • Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) >
        • Havana Declaration 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 26
    • Martin Luther King, Jr.
    • International >
      • Peoples’ Summit 2015
      • The Group of 77 >
        • Declaration on a New World Order 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela 3/26/2015
      • BRICS
      • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Readings
    • Charles McKelvey, Cuba in Global Context
    • Piero Gleijeses, Cuba and Africa
    • Charles McKelvey, Chávez and the Revolution in Venezuela
    • Charles McKelvey, The unfinished agenda of race in USA
    • Charles McKelvey, Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist Revolutionary
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Recommended books on Amazon.com; click on image of book to connect

Anti-imperialism is the way

8/17/2017

0 Comments

 
August 25, 2017

      At the present moment, the extreme Right in the United States has been able to mobilize significant numbers of people to mass demonstrations, constituting a popular complement to the neofascist policies of the administration of Donald Trump (see various posts in the category Trump).  Liberal and progressive organizations are turning to anti-neofascist and anti-racist counterdemonstrations.  However, it would be an error for the Left to be drawn into counterdemonstrations against the surging populist Right.  The Left ought to take a clear position, not only against populist fascism and racism, but also against the imperialist policies that the U.S. elite has promoted since the end of the nineteenth century.  And it ought to explain to the people the sources of current national and global problems, proposing concrete solutions based on cooperation with the popular anti-imperialist movements and progressive governments of the Third World.

      The U.S. power elite consistently has been imperialist.  However, the emergence of Trump has created anti-Trump faction of the elite, which sees racism and fascism as detrimental to imperialist goals.  On the other hand, there is a pro-Trump sector of the elite, which views a turn toward fascism, in the form of economic nationalism and increased militarism, as necessary for the attainment of imperialist goals, taking into account the sustained global crisis and the relative economic decline of the USA.  The pro-Trump sector appears strong among the military chiefs and perhaps the business sector with less globalized enterprises; it cannot overlook the need for patriotic as well as scapegoating rhetoric in order to mobilize popular support, but the military chiefs will be cautious about blatant forms of racism, given the high percentage of blacks and Latinos among the troops.  

     If the Left were to join the anti-neofascist and anti-racist agenda of the liberal sector of the elite, it would lose the opportunity created by the political division within the elite to mobilize the people into an effective anti-imperialist movement that would seek to take political control of the nation from the power elite.  An anti-imperialist national project, if well explained and presented with political intelligence, would have vibrancy among the people, inasmuch as many are alienated from both elite liberalism and neofascism.

     Let us define terms.  Imperialism is the quest for markets for surplus manufactured goods and agricultural products, as well as the pursuit of the raw materials necessary for production and commerce.  Imperialism uses a variety of methods, including military conquest, military occupation, intervention in the political affairs of nations, economic penetration, and control of finance and banking.  Fascism, in its twentieth century manifestations, was characterized by: the attainment of economic goals through military aggression and occupation; the scapegoating of religious and ethnic groups and homosexuals; and the repression of criticism, directed primarily toward Left-wing organizations and leaders.  Neofascism, the twenty-first century renewal of fascism, grants positions of leadership to selected members of ethnic groups and women, insofar as they support the fascist project, in accordance with post-1965 norms that protect the political and civil rights of all, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender.  Racism involves prejudice and discrimination against persons of color, in accordance with an ideology of white supremacy.  It assumes the superiority of Europeans and persons of European descent; and it views as necessary their control of the most powerful nations of the world-system.

      In the modern era, imperialism was connected historically to fascism and racism.  The European colonial empires that covered vast regions of the Americas, Asia and Africa were established through military aggression and force, which made possible the conversion of the economies of the conquered nations and peoples, so that they became suppliers of cheap labor and raw materials as well as markets for surplus goods in the expanding world-economy.  At first, the conquest of diverse nations and peoples was justified on religious grounds, inasmuch as the conquered peoples were not Christians; but with the emergence of democratic revolutions during the eighteenth century, racism emerged as a justification, rationalizing the domination of peoples of color and their exclusion from the promise of democracy.  Imperialism, racism and fascism were intertwining threads in the fabric of European domination of the world.

     However, during the period 1933 to 1979, in response to the anti-imperialist and anti-colonial movements of the colonized, the U.S. power elite developed imperialism with a democratic face, a form of imperialism that stood against fascism and racism.  The new form of apparently democratic imperialism proclaimed that all nations are equal and sovereign; and that all persons, regardless of race or color, possess political and civil rights.  It obtained its imperialist objectives indirectly, through diplomatic maneuvering, covert interventions in the affairs of nations, and control of the production, commerce, and banking of supposedly independent nations.  Repression of popular movements in the dominated nations was necessary, but supposedly independent governments, which often were military governments, carried it out. Direct military intervention by the United States was reserved only for moments of breakdown of control, such restraint being necessary to preserve the democratic façade.  The new form of imperialism was possible for the United States when it enjoyed productive, commercial, financial, and military ascendancy in the world.

      The new form of imperialism led to a world-system that was named neocolonial by the newly independent colonized peoples of Africa and Asia and the semi-colonized, economically dependent peoples of Latin America.  The neocolonial world-system attained its height in the 1950s and the 1960s, and it was without doubt the most impressive world-system in human history, far surpassing earlier empires, when rated by economic, political and territorial measures.  American glory was at its height, leading the world economically, politically and militarily; and projecting itself as the defender of democracy against all challenges to the established, supposedly democratic world-system.

     But during the 1970s, the world-system entered into a profound and sustained crisis, as a consequence of the fact that it had reached and overextended the geographical and ecological limits of the earth.  The world-system needed a fundamental structural transformation, basing itself not on the endless competitive pursuit of raw materials and markets, but on a quest for ecologically sustainable economic growth and global political stability.  Such a transformation required abandonment of imperialist policies and a turn to cooperation with popular movements and governments in the Third World, which had been seeking during the 1960s and 1970s a more just international economic order.  

      Coinciding with the structural crisis of the world-system, the United States entered a period of relative decline, caused by spending in excess of productive capacity, overspending in the military sector, and insufficient investment in new forms of production.  Confronting a situation of global crisis and national relative decline, the U.S. power elite, rather than taking an enlightened turn toward cooperation and global political stability, reverted to pre-1933 strategies.  At first, in the 1980s, its aggression was economic, involving the use of international finance agencies to impose the neoliberal project on the governments of the Third World.  Subsequently, in the 1990s, and especially after 2001, it turned to aggressive wars against selected Third World nations, chosen for the especially high value of their raw materials or for the resistance of their political leadership.

     The post-1980 economic and military aggression against the peoples and nations of the Third World has undermined the democratic image of imperialism.  The United States can no longer effectively pretend to be promoting democracy in the world, as it did in the 1950s and 1960s. The great majority of the people of the world have consciousness of the fact that the USA seeks raw materials, markets, profits, and particular interests.  Yet the continued pretense to democratic values and ideals by the U.S. power elite constrains its ability to act militarily and politically in accordance with its interests.  And thus there has emerged within the power elite a movement toward fascism, toward the elimination of the democratic pretense, and toward the aggressive defense of national economic interests, enlisting the support of popular sectors that have been excluded and ignored by liberal elitism.  However, within the U.S. power elite, there continue to be those sectors who believe that the continued pretense of democracy is necessary for global political stability and economic growth.  Thus there has emerged a political and ideological division within the U.S. power elite.

       When the Left takes a position in opposition in neofascism and racism, it unwittingly joins the ranks of elite liberals who promote imperialism with a democratic face.  It is hard to avoid this trap, because the liberal wing of the power elite controls the media of information and is able to shape the terms of the discourse and the debate.  In this difficult context, the Left must be historically and globally informed, and politically intelligent.  It must explain to the people that both liberal elitism and neofascism seek to maintain control of the world by the power elite, but by different means; and that both stand against the historic democratic call of “power to the people” in the United States, and they stand resolutely against the popular movements of the Third World.  The Left must call the people to an alternative to both liberal elitism and neofascism; it must call the people to an anti-imperialist popular movement that seeks to take control of the U.S. government in the name of the people, casting aside both liberal elitism and neofascism.  

       In 1964, Malcolm X, conscious of the limited gains that would result from the protection of black civil and political rights, advocated black community control as the means to economic and social development; and he sought to develop alliances with the governments of Africa and the Third World.  In 1967 and 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, developed a Poor People’s Campaign, formed by blacks, Latinos, indigenous persons, and whites; and he advocated support for the anti-colonial revolutions of the Third World.  In the 1980s, Rev. Jesse Jackson sought to form a Rainbow Coalition of the various sectors of the people, including white workers and the white middle class, for the purpose of taking political power; and he called for a foreign policy of North-South cooperation, casting aside the legacy of imperialism. These proposals remain viable and significant: political coalition among various popular sectors; alliance with anti-imperialist movements and governments of the Third World; and black community control of local educational, law enforcement, and judicial institutions.

     But since the 1990s, these prophetic voices have been forgotten. The Left has drifted into identity politics, post-modernist celebration of lifestyle diversity, and segmented movement from issue to issue, without offering a comprehensive analysis, a programmatic platform, or a plan for the popular taking of power.  Like the U.S. power elite, the U.S. Left is unprepared to explain national and global dynamics to the people, and it is not able to lead them to an alternative road.  However, we should be aware that the myopia of the U.S. power elite is historic, whereas popular movements in the United States have pointed to the necessary road during important historic junctures, thus indicating a possibility for emergence of gifted leaders among the people, capable of discerning and leading the people toward the necessary road.

      The Left must find a way beyond its present limitations.  We must have consciousness of the fact that fascism and racism have been revitalized by structural factors; they will not be brought to an end by street confrontations, but by leading the people to an alternative road. We must search for effective strategies for the education of the people and the taking of political power by the people.  The popular taking of power is necessary, so that a government of and for the people can develop policies and political discourses that respond to the interests of the people, and not the elite.  Such a government can act decisively in defense of the needs of the people, in accordance with the long-term good of the nation, and in cooperation with the peoples of the world.  

     Today, the peoples of Latin America are proclaiming, in word and deed, that a more just, democratic, and sustainable world is possible. We in the United States must share in this faith in the future of humanity. We must envision the solidarity of the peoples of the United States with the peoples and movements of the Third World, whose historic vantage point as colonized provides them with wisdom from below, enabling them to discern the unsustainability of the neocolonial world-system as well as the necessary alternative road.
​
​
     For further reflections on these and other relevant themes, see my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The light in the darkness.


0 Comments

Brexit: A sign of world-system crisis

7/13/2016

1 Comment

 
     The victory of the “Leave” campaign in the recent UK referendum on the British membership in the European Union has been attributed to various factors.  

     (1) Xenophobia.  The debate was dominated by fear of immigration and migrants, an issue that was exploited opportunistically by some leaders of the Leave campaign.    

    (2) A popular protest from the Right and the Left.  The Leave vote was a protest on the part of those who have experienced poverty, lack of economic opportunity, and underfunding of education and health services, and who feel that their voices have been ignored.  In objective terms, Britain benefitted economically from its participation in the European Union.  Unlike most EU nations, it retained its own currency, and it controlled its monetary policy; and as a member of the Union, it could send its goods to the continent on a tariff-free basis. However, the European Union adhered to an anti-popular, pro-elite neoliberal agenda, and many Britons were vaguely aware of this. Robert Kuttner of the Huffington Post notes that “the Brits who voted for Brexit got a lot of facts and details wrong. . . .  But they did grasp that the larger economic system is serving elites and is not serving them.”  The popular opposition to the European Union and its neoliberal policies came from both Right-wing populism as well as the Left.  Kuttner stresses the right-wing component of the anti-neoliberal protest: “Rightwing revolts are always substantially irrational, as was the vote for Brexit. But when downwardly mobile Brits grasp that the EU and the larger model of neo-liberalism aren’t exactly on their side, they are grasping a truth.”  On the other hand, Andrew O'Hehir (Salon) guesses that 20% of the vote for Brexit came from the Left.  He writes that Brexit was, in part, an assault on “the post-Cold War world order of economic globalization and ‘free trade’ agreements, coupled with permanent undeclared war and worldwide intelligence-gathering on an unprecedented scale.”

    (3) Rejection of the political elite and the established political process.  Mihail Evans, International Research Fellow at the New Europe College at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Bucharest interprets the vote for Brexit as a rejection of politics itself.  He maintains that there is something profoundly wrong with Western democracies: the art of politics has been replaced by the technique of politics.  The former involves elected representatives working with one another to address problems in a creative and consensual manner, with sensitivity not only to the interests of the particular locality but also the long-term good of the nation, the region, humanity and the planet; whereas the latter involves effective use of campaign fundraising strategies, political advertising, and soundbites.   

     (4)  National versus cosmopolitan identity.  Lisa Maria Herzog (Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main) observes that nationalist politicians blame the European Union for anything that arouses fear and anger among the people, thus stimulating a form of nationalist identity that stands in opposition to identity with Europe.  Regina Rini (New York University) interprets the European Union as involving an attempt to move personal identity from the nation to Europe, and the endeavor has failed.  She writes: “In many ways, the project of the European Union has been an effort to submerge the militaristic undertones of national identity in the cosmopolitan solidarity of a multi-ethnic, multi-national superstate. Europe has all the trappings of political identity: a capital, a flag, an anthem. But Brexit shows that this aspect of the European project has not yet succeeded. For many people, it is still national identity that holds greatest allegiance.” Similarly, O'Hehir maintains that “Brexit was an assault on the cosmopolitan, borderless Pan-European ideal represented by the E.U.”

     (5)  The low quality of the public discussion.  Martin O’Neill (University of York) maintains that “the vote followed the lowest-quality political campaign in recent British history, as newspapers with their own pro-Brexit agenda . . . regurgitated a steady stream of misdirection, obfuscation and outright lies.”  Kuttner laments “the absence of enlightened leadership, either in Britain or on the continent,” and the incapacity of political leaders to propose an option other than remain in or leave the European Union.  Thus, the people voted without a good understanding and without the possibility of reframing the issue, and in their votes they were expressing sentiments with respect to other issues, such as immigration, neoliberalism, inequality, and the cosmopolitanism of elites.  

     Brexit is a sign of the structural crisis of the world-system.  In seeking to understand the meaning of Brexit, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the modern world-system was established on a foundation of conquest of vast regions of the world by seven European nations from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries (see various posts on The origin and development of the modern world-system).  During the twentieth century, as a result of the movements of the colonized peoples, the European colonial empires were abandoned, and a neo-colonial world-system under US hegemony emerged, preserving the essential economic relations established during colonial rule (see posts on Neocolonialism).

     The transition to neocolonialism did not address the fundamental contradictions of the system, of which three are particularly important. (1) The world-economy expanded by incorporating new territories and populations, but by the middle of the twentieth century, there were no more lands and peoples to conquer.  (2) The thirst for social justice among the peoples of the world ensured that popular anti-colonial, anti-neocolonial, anti-imperialist and anti-neoliberal movements could not be satisfied without transforming structures of colonial/neocolonial domination and superexploitation.  (3) The strategy of sowing division among the popular sectors of the world by addressing popular demands in core but not in peripheral zones, financing the strategy through government debt, became unsustainable by the 1970s, as a result of declining margins of global profits and excessive levels of government debts.

      The turn to the neoliberal project in the 1980s was the elite response to these unresolved contradictions.  It turned to economic war against the nations of peripheral and semi-peripheral zones, coercing governments to remove all protections of national currency, national industry, and the social and economic rights of the people; and to a rollback of concessions made to core popular sectors during the twentieth century.  And it turned to neo-fascist wars where its political control was threatened and the value of the natural resources was high.  Both strategies had certain short-terms benefits for transnational corporations and political elites, but they deepened the crisis that results from the unresolved contradictions of the world-system.

     At the same time, the Left of the core nations was unable to explain to the people the structural contradictions that had led to the elite impulse for the neoliberal agenda.  The Left previously had turned to reformism and away from revolutionary transformation; and it has been characterized by a tendency toward Eurocentrism, incapable of analyzing the world-system from below, from the vantage point of the neocolonized.  Accordingly, the Left in the North, although it has protested the neoliberal rollback, has not been able to demonstrate to the people that it understands the roots of the global crisis and would be capable of making the necessary structural transformations, if it were to have the support of the people.

      Without a reasoned and politically viable alternative proposed by the Left, the public debate in the nations of the core has remained trapped in Eurocentric assumptions, and it has become increasingly superficial and conflictive.  Public discourse explains nothing, and it cannot lead to the resolution of any of the contradictions.  Public debate is within the context of assumptions shared by the Right and the political center.  The art of politics has degenerated into the technique of politics, where the strategy is to distort in order to manipulate; and successful politicians increasingly have become masters of a deceptive discourse.  The people are losing faith in the political system, and in the political leaders who have based their careers in maneuvering through the contradictions, without seeking to address them.  No political figures emerge to lead the people to a comprehensive historical and global understanding and that forges multiple layers of identity among the people, thinking of themselves as patriotic citizens of nations but also responsible citizens of the region and the world.  These dynamics have become manifest with the Brexit vote:  the debate was of low quality and characterized by the exploitation of popular anxiety; some voted for Leave because of their lack of confidence in political elites and the political system; some expressed their rejection of EU neoliberal policies, which they do not fully understand, but which they sense are not designed to protect their interests and needs; and some seek revitalization of nationalism, disdainful of the cosmopolitanism of the elites and the upper and upper-middle classes.

      The uncontrollable migration from the periphery and semi-periphery to the core, created by the legacy of underdevelopment and the recent neo-fascist wars, is one of the most explosive dynamics of the systemic crisis of the system.  Neither the politicians of the Left nor the Right can explain the origins of the new migration nor offer a constructive proposal, and opportunistic politicians exploit the fear and anxiety of the people that the migratory crisis creates.  

     The structural crisis of the world-system is not only an economic, financial and ecological crisis.  It is also a political and ideological crisis: The peoples of the core have lost faith in established political institutions; and the opinion makers, including those of the Left, are unable to formulate an alternative ideology.

      But the political and ideological crisis pertains to the core, not to the periphery.  In the neocolonized regions of the world, the peoples are retaking and reformulating the radical Third World agenda of the 1960s and 1970s.  This renewal, provoked by a popular rejection of the neoliberal project and the national political elites who participated in its implementation, is particularly advanced in Latin America, but it is expressing itself throughout the Third World, as is evident by the declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement in recent years.

      Taking into account the advanced nature of the Third World movement, we can only conclude that the renewal of the Left in the core requires encounter with the Third World popular movements for national and social liberation.  They are forging in theory and practice a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system, conceived as an alternative to the unsustainable neocolonial world-system.  The peoples of the South are showing the peoples of the North the necessary road.  If the intellectuals and activists of the Left in the North can learn from the popular movements of the South, they would be able to propose to the people an alternative to neoliberalism, xenophobia, distrust of politicians, and chauvinistic nationalism, all of which forms a breeding ground for fascism.  
​Key words:  Brexit, xenophobia, legitimation crisis, political identities, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, migratory crisis
1 Comment

The unsustainability of US imperialism

4/28/2016

0 Comments

 
April 26, 2016

      I am participating this week in the XII Seminario de Relaciones Internacionales, sponsored by the Instituto Superior de Relaciones Internacionales "Raúl Roa García" (ISRI) in Havana.  ISRI is the university that is responsible for the education of Cuban diplomats.  My presentation will be on “US Decline, Global Crisis, and Popular Resistance: The unsustainability of US imperialist policies.”  I provide in this blog post a summary of the key ideas of the paper.

     With the concentration of industry in the United States in the last decades of the nineteenth century, US productivity exceeded the demand of the domestic market.  Responding to this situation, the capitalist class in the 1890s advocated a policy of involvement in the affairs of the nations of the world, in order to ensure access to the markets of other countries.  Its promoters call the proposed policy “imperialism.”

      The first expression of US imperialist policy was the military intervention in Cuba in 1898 and the military occupation of Cuba from 1898 to 1902.  From 1902 to the present, imperialism has been a continuous policy of US governments, with the constant intention of obtaining markets for US industrial and agricultural products and also obtaining sources of raw materials and cheap labor.  A variety of strategies have been used, including military interventions, coups d’état, political maneuvers, support of repressive military dictatorships, and interference in the internal affairs of nations.  The various strategies had the common objective of ensuring that the governments of the Third World adopted policies, laws, and commercial regulations that guaranteed US access.

      Imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century was a new policy, distinct from European colonialism, which was characterized by conquest, military force, and direct political control.  Although military force was a component of imperialism, the new imperialist policy sought a new form of domination characterized by economic, financial and ideological penetration, accompanied by recognition of political independence.  When the European colonial empires collapsed as a result of the anti-colonial movements formed by the colonized, the United States was prepared to insert itself in the place of the ex-colonial power, but in the context of a different structure of domination, to which the colonized peoples gave the name “neocolonialism.”  This process began in the second half of the nineteenth century, after the fall the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires in America; and it culminated after World War II, with the fall of the British, French, Belgian and Dutch colonial empires in Africa and Asia.  As a consequence of the implementation of imperialist policy, the United States became, during the period 1946 to 1967, the hegemonic power in a neocolonial world-system.  

     Although military power has been an important component of US neocolonialism, the United Stated developed control of its neocolonies primarily through ownership of productive and commercial enterprises as well as banks.  The neocolonial state was legally and formally independent, and it was responsible for containing anti-imperialist popular movements through a combination of repression and concessions.  The United States provided military aid, but the neocolonial state was responsible for social control.  With the national bourgeoisie subordinate to US corporations, and with the neocolonial government dependent on US aid and support, the United States was able to ensure that commercial regulations favored US interests in access to markets, raw materials, and cheap labor.

     US hegemony began to erode in 1968.  It began to lose its overwhelmingly dominant position in world production and commerce, especially with respect to Germany and Japan, as a result of its overemphasis on consumption and military expenditures.  At the same time, the world-system entered a long period of stagnation in profits, as a result of the fact that it had reached the geographical limits of the earth.  In response to this situation, the US power elite used the external debt of Third World governments to impose neoliberal policies, which eliminates even the most modest protections of national industry.  Neoliberalism increased profits of US corporations in the short term, but it undermined US neocolonialism, because it ignored economic interests and political agenda of the national bourgeoisie, which plays a necessary role in neocolonial domination.  By converting the national bourgeoisie into a mere agent of foreign capital, the neoliberal project undermined its capacity to lead the neocolonized nation with credibility, rendering it incapable of fulfilling the role of channeling popular demands and maintaining social control.  The discrediting of the national bourgeoisie gave rise to renewed popular movements in virtually all of the nations of the Third World, led by charismatic leaders with radical and revolutionary discourses, that have sought to cast aside the national bourgeoisies and their political representatives in favor of alternative popular parties that would defend the sovereignty of the nations and the social and economic rights of the peoples.  This process has been most advanced in Latin America, the backyard of the neocolonial hegemonic power.

     Thus the US directed neocolonial world-system is in decadence.  Moreover, from this point forward, US imperialist policies are no longer sustainable, as a consequence of two factors.  First, the US productive and commercial decline has continued, and the United States is increasingly losing the capacity to control the economies of the neocolonies.  Secondly, anti-imperialist movements have acquired such force that acceptance of US ownership and dictation of commercial regulations and relations is increasingly less possible politically.

      Although the United States continues to fall economically and commercially, it remains by far the strongest military power in the world, as a consequence of the fact that it has had a permanent war economy since World War II.  Thus the United States, increasingly lacking the economic capacity to pursue imperialist policies, will find it more and more necessary to obtain its goals through military means, establishing what Fidel Castro has called a “global military dictatorship.”

     Thus US imperialism and the neocolonial world-system are in decline, and it is not likely to endure.  We are in a time of transition to one of three possibilities: (1) a new stage in the world-system, a world-empire under US military control; (2) a different world-system, more just and democratic, characterized by solidarity rather than domination, and by mutually beneficial commerce rather than super-exploitation, a possibility established by Third World popular movements that have emerged in reaction to the imposition of the neoliberal project; and (3) the disintegration of the world system, characterized by chaos, regional dictatorships, and local fascist gangs, a possibility established by the irresponsible behavior of the global elite before the profound crisis that humanity confronts.
0 Comments

A possible military world-empire and its alternatives

4/26/2016

0 Comments

 
April 28, 2016
​
​     We have seen that US imperialism was developed as a policy that sought control of economies and markets of the world without seeking direct political and administrative control, as occurred with the European colonial empires.  US imperialism was a central force in the transition from a colonial to a neocolonial world-system.  It utilized a variety of strategies, including military interventions, but as it developed, its primary focus was on economic, financial and ideological penetration, with military intervention available as a constant threat, but applied only when necessary.  The neocolonial world-system reached its zenith in the period 1945 to 1967.  However, since 1968, the United States has suffered an erosion of its productive and commercial capacities, such that it can no longer maintain its hegemony through economic and commercial means, and it must increasingly rely upon military intervention and war.  Since 2001, the United States has been leading the global powers to a transition from the neocolonial world-system under US hegemony to a US-controlled world-empire, a global dictatorship that dominates by military rather than economic means (see “The unsustainability of US imperialism” 4/26/2016).

      A militarized world-empire would represent a return to a form of domination similar to the European colonial empires, in that it increasingly would violate in blatant forms the principle of the sovereignty of nations.  And it also would represent a new form of fascism, inasmuch as it would involve the attainment of economic goals by military means, and it increasingly would disrespect citizenship rights in all regions.
 
     Inasmuch as a global military dictatorship would necessarily involve emphasis on arms production and would lead to sustained conflicts in the world, it possibly could lead to total breakdown of the existing, but too limited, international efforts in response to common human problems, such as global warming, environmental deterioration, war, terrorism, disease, crime, and uncontrolled international migration.  It thus would increase the possibility for disintegration, fragmentation and chaos, with regional military dictatorships and local fascist gangs, and it also would increase the possibility for human extinction.

     Within the United States, the turn to global military dictatorship would deepen the historic contradiction between the claimed values of democracy and actual political practice.  And it would lead to a further erosion of the protection of social and economic rights of the people, a process that has been underway since 1980.

     Standing against the two possibilities of global fascism and chaos, there is the long-standing effort of the peoples and movements of the Third World to construct a just, democratic and sustainable world-system.  This process has attained its most advanced expression in Latin America and the Caribbean, and it is most fully represented by the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador as well as regional associations such as ALBA and CELAC.  The Third World quest for a more just and democratic world-system also is represented by the Non-Aligned Movement, which in the twenty-first century has retaken the radical Third World agenda of national liberation of the 1960s and 1970s.  The quest of the peoples of the world for a just, democratic and sustainable world-system represents that only reasonable option for humanity.  

      The people of the United States have an interest in learning from the examples of the Third World popular movements and developing a popular coalition that seeks to take power and govern in accordance with universal human values, the needs of the people and the interests of humanity.  Although such a revolutionary popular coalition confronts enormous obstacles, it would not be without precedent in the United States; to the contrary, revolutionary movements in defense of popular sectors have emerged at various times in the history of the United States, with its most recent expression being the period of 1955 to 1972.
     
0 Comments

Responding to the migratory crisis

9/20/2015

0 Comments

 
     We have seen that the global migratory crisis has been caused by five hundred years of colonialism and neocolonialism, thirty-five years of neoliberalism, and twenty-five years of military and political interventions (see “Causes of the global migratory crisis” 9/18/2015). 

      What can be done?  The solution to global migratory crisis is North-South cooperation, in which the super-exploitation of the peoples and lands of the planet by the core powers would be cast aside as no longer sustainable.  Governments of the world would work together in the creation of a more just and democratic world-system, in which would be respected the equal sovereignty of all nations, the rights of all nations to development, and the right of all persons to work and live with security in their native countries.  Such a democratic world-system can only be attained when popular movements in various core nations emerge to take power in the name of the people, thus establishing governments that develop policies in defense of the needs and interests of the people, and not the elite.  In other words, the solution would require the emergence of a socialist world-system, consisting of governments that rule in the name of and on behalf of their peoples.

      The transition to a more just and democratic or socialist world-system has begun, with governments representing the interests of the people having emerging in several nations in peripheral and semi-p   eripheral regions: eight in Latin America plus China, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Mozambique, and Iran.  The next s tep in the process is the taking of power in the name of the people in key nations of the core.  

     However, even with people’s governments in power in important core nations, the move toward a just and democratic world-system would necessarily be a step-by-step process.  The core-peripheral inequality established by the capitalist world-economy cannot be eliminated overnight, so a tendency for peripheral-to-core migration would continue.  Therefore, governments under popular control would have to take cooperative steps to control migrations from one nation to another, so that they occur in the context of a plan for the use of the migratory labor, and in the context of programs that are responding to the various needs of the people in both core and peripheral regions.  

     Immediate steps by people’s governments to control international migration would be necessary in order to undermine the political use of illegal migration by fascist parties and actors, which would seek to destabilize governments under popular control through the scapegoating of illegal immigrants, as part of a global counterrevolution that would seek to establish a fascist world-system dominated by the US-based military-industrial complex and characterized by repression of political and civil rights and disregard for social and economic rights.  Indeed, observing the signs of the times, one could reasonably maintain that at the present time in human history, liberalism and neoliberalism are exhausted, and the battle for the future is between socialism and fascism.  One can see clear tendencies in both directions in the established world-system, still ruled by liberal and neoliberal elites yet clearly in decay and headed toward chaos.

     As a dimension of continued liberal and neoliberal ideological control of the world-system, a political perspective that envisions North-South cooperation and international cooperation for the control of migration cannot be found in the news media controlled by the great corporations of the core.  The superficial approach of the news media, necessary for the ideological manipulation of the people, does not allow space for historical and theoretical analysis of the various dimensions and symptoms of the systemic global crisis.  To the extent that there is debate on the migratory issue, it is between those who want to receive the migrants and the refugees, and those who want to block their entrance and/or send them away.  It is a debate between humaneness and indifference to human suffering, and although the one is far more moral than the other, neither addresses the source of the problem.

      But not so in Cuba.  Cuban television and newspapers have devoted considerable time to the global migratory crisis, in which the fundamental historical factors and the political implications have been explored.  At a recent panel discussion on the theme on Cuban television, the moderator asked in conclusion for a succinct expression of future prospects with respect to the global migratory crisis.  One panelist, a professor of demography at the University of Havana, maintained that as long as the economic and political interventions of the core powers continue, uncontrolled migration to the core from the periphery and semi-periphery will continue.  Another panelist, a professor in international relations at the Higher Institute for International Relations (which educates Cuban diplomats), asserted that the strong migratory tendency to the core nations will continue as long as the world-economy continues to be a capitalist world-economy.  

     Although these commentaries by Cuban academics provided a good, succinct conclusion to the panel, not many people saw it in Washington, Berlin or London, or in Des Moines.  The formation of alternative people’s parties in the core, dedicated to the education of the people, is a necessary response to the structural crisis of the world system (see “Presidential primaries in USA” 8/25/2015).  An educated humanity, educated by and for itself, can save itself from the moral indifference of global elites, who are leading the world toward barbarism and chaos.


Key words: migration, illegal immigration, refugees, fascism

0 Comments

  Causes of the global migratory crisis

9/18/2015

0 Comments

 
     Western Europe is inundated with migrants and refugees from the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern Europe.  In the United States, the question of illegal immigration has become a divisive political issue.  The world-system is experiencing a global migratory crisis.

     Prior to the middle of the twentieth century, significant migrations were stimulated by the geographical and commercial expansion of the world-system.  The forced migration of Africans to the Americas functioned to provide labor for sugar, coffee, cotton, tobacco and rice plantations.  The voluntary migration of Europeans to the Americas was stimulated by the need for settlers in the newly-conquered regions, who became proprietors and workers in expanding industry and agriculture.  Although the scope and ethnic origin of the immigrants provoked political division in the American republics, migration was functional for the world-system.

      But migration today is a sign of the terminal crisis of the world-system, an indication of the increasingly downward spiral of the world-system toward chaos.  Migration today is principally from the periphery and semi-periphery to the core, provoked by declining social and economic conditions in peripheral and semi-peripheral zones, and occurring in the context of limited need for new labor in the core.

     The problem is rooted in the historical development of the structures of the world-system.  From the end of the fifteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth, seven European powers conquered, colonized and peripheralized vast regions of the planet, converting them into suppliers of cheap raw materials and cheap labor, and establishing markets for the surplus goods that were beyond the capacity of core domestic markets to consume.  The result was a world-system characterized by extreme inequality, with high levels of industry and a high standard of living in the core, and with underdevelopment and high levels of poverty in the colonized regions.  As is logical, such inequality created a tendency of migration from the periphery and semi-periphery to the core, as migrants sought to improve their economic situation.

       The colonized peoples were everywhere tenacious and persistent in their resistance to the structures of the world-system.  Slave rebellions provoked a fear of a generalized violent retribution among white settlers in the Americas.  The conquered nations and peoples as a whole, once their initial armed self-defense was overcome, turned to the organization of nationalist movements, seeking to form independent nations and a more just and democratic world-system composed of equal and sovereign nations.  But the movements could accomplish no more than the protection of formal political and civil rights and the establishment of new nations that were only nominally independent.  They did not attain the necessary transformation of the economic structures that had been imposed through conquest and peripheralization.  And thus, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the world-system underwent a transition from colonialism to neocolonialism, with increasingly expanding economic and social inequality.  

      In spite of its successful containment of the nationalist movements of the colonized regions, the world-system faced a contradiction that it could not resolve within its logic and assumptions.  Namely, the contradiction between a system that expands through conquering new lands and peoples, and the fact that the earth has finite limits with respect to land and peoples.  These ecological and geographical limits were reached around the middle of the twentieth century, when the world-system ran out of lands and peoples to conquer, thus eliminating its most important engine for expansion.

      The necessary direction to resolve the problem was being indicated by the most radical of the nationalist leaders: Ho Chi Minh, Fidel, Nasser, Nyerere, Nkrumah, and Martin Luther King.  They were pointing to a more just world-system, in which future world commercial expansion would be based on the increasing capacity of the colonized regions to purchase goods and services.   But the visionary charismatic leaders, the prophets of their time, were ignored and often demonized by global elites.  The super-exploitation inherent in the core-peripheral relation was preserved as an essential component of the neocolonial world-system.  

       As a result of the fact that the fundamental geographical contradiction remained unattended, the system began to experience symptoms of structural crisis, the first signs of which began to emerge in the 1970s.  At this juncture, global elites began to demonstrate their unrestrained commitment to their particular interests, placing them above the requirements of the world-system and the needs of an increasingly suffering humanity.  They launched a global economic war against the poor in the form of a neoliberal project that reduced state regulation, placing profits over people and financial speculation over economic development.

      The neoliberal project increased the extreme global inequality and high-levels of poverty that were the historic legacy of colonialism and neocolonialism, and it undermined the already limited sovereignty of nominally independent nations in the neocolonial world-system.  An important political consequence of the neoliberal project was that it gave rise to a renewal of the nationalist movements, which attacked the legitimacy of national political elites in semi-peripheral and peripheral zones for their cooperation with the core powers in the imposition of the neoliberal project.  The renewal is particularly advanced in Latin America, where Leftist/progressive alternative political parties have taken political power from the national elites who “were on their knees before the colonial power,” as Hugo Chávez expressed it.

       By creating an increasingly desperate economic and social situation in semi-peripheral and peripheral regions, the neoliberal project also gave further stimulation to the tendency of migration to the core.  And this has occurred in an historic moment in which the nations of the core are not in an economic or political position to receive migrants.  To some extent, the migration to the core is functional, for many migrants become laborers in low-income sectors, where there is a short labor supply.  But not entirely so.  Migration today is not like the great migrations in earlier moments of the world-system, when labor and settlers were needed in the Americas in the midst of economic expansion.  Migration today occurs in a context of limited economic growth, where unemployment in the core is a stronger dynamic than labor shortage.  And it occurs in a political context in which the Keynesian welfare state, having been overextended, has been dismantled, creating a situation in which the social and economic needs of core citizens and residents are not being attended by core states.  In this economic and political context, the pretended arrival of tens of thousands persons, without authorization by any government, creates an explosive situation that can be utilized by political parties and actors with fascist inclinations.  Rather than being functional, migration today is a symptom of a world-system spiraling toward chaos.

       Along with migrants who seek to enter the core for economic reasons, migration today includes refugees, who find that their lives are threatened in their native countries as a result of war, terrorism, or political repression.  The increasing number of refugees also has been provoked by core policies.  Since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of Islamic radicalism, core elites have unleased wars and provided support for terrorist opposition groups in various countries, including Iraq, Syria, and Libya, in an effort to maintain control over natural resources.  The political and military interventions have destroyed the social fabric of nations, creating conditions of life-threatening insecurity, and stimulating a wave of refugees in Europe.

     Thus, the global migratory crisis is a consequence of five centuries of colonialism and neocolonialism, creating a fundamental global inequality; three decades and a half of neoliberalism, exacerbating the inequality and creating a desperate economic and social situation in vast regions of the planet; and two decades and a half of military and political interventions, creating refugees on a large scale.  The migratory crisis is one of several signs that the world-system is spiraling toward chaos, a consequence of the blindness of global elites to the fact that the system has reached the geographical limits of the earth, and it can no longer expand by conquest and domination. Experiencing stagnating profits, and not grasping its source, and lacking sufficient patriotism and social responsibility, global elites has waged war on the weakest and the poorest. 

     The historic context of the migratory crisis, and the social irresponsibility of the governments of the North, was expressed well by Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Relations of Cuba, in a press conference on September 16, 2015:
We are witnessing extraordinarily complicated international conditions.  What is occurring with the migratory waves in Europe is a call to human consciousness.  Persons are fleeing from conflicts, from unconventional wars, from the consequences of actions that violate international law and that have led to the destruction of states and of the social fabric of various nations; they are fleeing from poverty and underdevelopment.  And it concerns us profoundly that the European Union is not advancing toward a solution of the profound causes of these migratory waves; instead, the use of military or repressive methods against the migrants is being proposed.
     We are dismayed by the image of a small child drowned on the beach, a symbol that moves all humanity.  We hope that there will be political will among the governments of the industrialized countries, which are historically responsible for the conditions of underdevelopment and poverty that exist in the countries of the South, particularly those that are responsible for the recent conflicts that have led to the present situation.

Source

“El bloqueo es  una violación masiva, flagrante y sistemática de los derechos humanos de todos los cubanos.”  Press conference offered by Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, Minister of Foreign Relations of Cuba, September 16, 2015.  Published in full in Granma: Organo official del Comité Central del Partido Coumnista de Cuba, September 17, 2015, Pp. 3-6.  Cited text was translated by Charles McKelvey.
 

Key words: global migratory crisis, migration, illegal immigration, refugees, fascism

0 Comments

China and the alternative world-system

7/23/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted July 18, 2014

​     In response to my post and announcement that mentioned the participation of China in the development of alternative international structures by the governments of the South, Alan Spector, Past President of the Association for Humanist Sociology, posted the following message to the Progressive and  Critical Sociologist Network discussion list.
With all due respect to those forces who oppose US and EU imperialism, and furthermore while opposing the anti-China sentiment being promoted by some sections of the USA, it is still necessary to understand that major economic and political forces from China are engaging in some rather nasty forms of imperialism in Africa. Some might have argued that the USA 100 years ago represented an anti-imperialist force against Britain and much of Europe, but since then it became obvious that the USA was capable of vicious imperialism.  I would be a little cautious about praising the current Chinese government for being an ally of the oppressed and exploited of the world.    

        ALAN SPECTOR
    The position taken by most Cuban scholars is that China has exploitative commercial relations to the extent that the commercial partner accepts it, as had occurred with respect to Chinese relations with some African nations, but that China accepts more equitable terms of exchange, if required by the partner nation, as has occurred with respect to progressive Latin American governments.  The latter tendency has been more prominent in the last ten years, as an increasing number of nations are beginning to search for mechanisms of autonomous development.  Thus, Chinese foreign policy is fundamentally different from US policy, which seeks to overthrow governments that insist upon exchange that is more equitable.

      An analogy between the United States 100 years ago and China today is interesting.  Certainly, both the USA then and China today can be seen as in the early stages of a project of ascent.  But the historical and global context is different.  The United States had begun its ascent in the eighteenth century on the basis of geographical expansionism, super-exploitation of slave labor in the Caribbean and the US South, and the beginnings of US imperialist penetration in Latin America and the Caribbean (see “Slavery, development, and US ascent” 8/30/2013; “Cotton” 9/9/2013; “The origin of US imperialist policies” 9/18/2013; “US Imperialism, 1903-1932” 9/19/2013).  At the dawn of the twentieth century, the United States could envision its continuing ascent through the deepening of imperialist penetration in colonized and neocolonized regions, and thus imperialism emerged as the foundation for US foreign policy during the twentieth century.

       But the possibilities for ascent through imperialist penetration are much more limited today, as a result of the fact that the world-system has reached its geographical limits, and thus is itself facing a structural and possibly terminal crisis (see “The terminal crisis of the world-system” 3/28/2014).  As a result, China sees a different road to ascent:  relations with semi-peripheral nations that also are seeking ascent, on the basis of the more equitable relations upon which all insist.  China, although a larger and more powerful nation that has never been colonized, has in common with other semi-peripheral nations the persistent struggle for autonomy in the face of European expansionism.  For China, the most practical strategy in the present global context is to cast its lot with other semi-peripheral nations seeking ascent, who see the defense of their national interests as requiring the democratic transformation of the world-system. Recognizing that there is strength in unity, the semi-peripheral nations also are inviting the poorer peripheralized countries to participate, nations that also have been victimized by the same process of Western colonialism and imperialism. 

     In following a different road, the emerging semi-peripheral nations are redefining the meaning of ascent.  Rather than pursuing national interests through superexploitation of labor in other lands and at the expense of other nations, the emerging nations seek national development through cooperation with other nations, seeking to identify forms of economic, commercial, and cultural exchange that are mutually beneficial, and to develop political alliances on this basis. They are following a logic of national development that is integral to a process of change that seeks a more just and democratic world, recognizing that the neocolonial world-system has reached the geographical limits of the earth and has surpassed its ecological limits, and appreciating that the utilization of structures of neocolonial exploitation as a basis of ascent is no longer possible.  In the present historic moment, advances in development for any nation have to occur on a foundation of cooperation with other nations.  Not recognizing this fundamental fact of our time, the established global powers continue to aggressively pursue interests through super-exploitation of the peoples of the earth, and in the process, they are establishing the foundation for a new form of fascism or an era of chaos.

     So there is emerging a global project from the South that seeks to develop an alternative to the North American-European-centered neocolonial world-system.   China, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina and others are among the principal actors in the creation of alternative international structures (see “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; “Is Marx today fulfilled?” 3/20/2014; and “The alternative world-system from below” 4/15/2014).

     Alan is not necessarily among them, but many people believe that “power corrupts,” and to believe that every powerful nation will be imperialist is perhaps a social application of this maxim. The notion that persons with power and governments of powerful nations invariably ignore universal human values is a cynical and pernicious belief, for it implies that a more just and democratic world cannot be created. Against this notion, I maintain that the Third World revolution of the last 200 years shows that there are persons who possess power in the form of charismatic authority who are committed to universal values, and that there have emerged governments controlled by popular social movements that have acted in accordance with international norms and democratic values.  And I maintain that the structural and possible terminal crisis of the world-system is establishing conditions that favor this possibility.  Today, as the neocolonized peoples of the earth are in movement, proclaiming that a more just and democratic world is possible and necessary, we intellectuals of the North have the duty to recognize and support this process, helping our peoples to cast aside cynicism and to embrace hope.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, China, ascent
0 Comments

States as actors in the world-system

7/22/2014

0 Comments

 
July 21, 2014

​     In response to my post of July 18 (“China and the alternative world-system”), Alan Spector has posted the following message in the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network discussion list.
Of course the Chinese leadership and the many, many millionaires in China have not even touched, much less scratched the surface of exploitation, violence, and oppression that US imperialism has committed.  But this phrase is unconvincing:  “The position taken by most Cuban scholars is that Chinese foreign policy forms exploitative relations to the extent that the commercial partner accepts it.”

Which "commercial partner?"  The government of Ethiopia, the few wealthy bankers who profit from that government, or the workers?  Are the workers "voluntarily" accepting it?  Do wage workers in Bangladesh sweatshops "voluntarily" accept their situation because they "voluntarily" show up for work rather than starve?  While the rebels in Sudan some years ago were obviously supported by Western imperialism, does that mean one should ally with the extremely repressive government?

Capitalism goes through a process of development -- the twists and turns, the zigs and zags are different from place to place, but it is not just a simple "world system" of  extraction and exchange. The root is exploitation.  Using "nations" as the category lumps oppressors and exploiters in the poorer nations into the same category as those they oppress and disarms rebellion that is genuinely seeking to create alternatives to exploitative capitalism. Would Saddam Hussein be considered an ally of the oppressed?

The limits to the capitalist world system are indeed getting squeezed.  Whether the historical pattern of capitalism's limits will be resolved by "democratic" alliances of semi-periphery forces or whether it will be resolved by inter-imperialist war is the question. 

Alan Spector
     In using the phrase “commercial partner,” I was referring to the government of a nation that signed a commercial agreement with China.  Most of the governments of Africa and Asia do not represent superexploited workers; rather, they represent the national bourgeoisie or a sector of it, such as the landed estate bourgeoisie, and they often represent the interests of international capital.  This reality, inherent in the neocolonial situation, is being challenged by the Third World popular revolution that has emerged with a renewed force since 1995.

     China does not use coercive measures, the threat of force or sanctions to induce governments to accept commercial agreements, and for this reason, Cuban scholars tend not to view China as an emerging imperialist power, even though some of these agreements, particularly with respect to Africa, are in opposition to the interests of workers and to the autonomy of the nation.  Certainly, neocolonized nations are not truly independent, and the neocolonial situation is itself coercive; but China takes no particular aggressive action, and in this respect, it departs from the conduct of the global powers, which also have historic responsibility for the establishment of the neocolonial world-system.  At the same time, China has increasingly moved toward the signing of agreements with progressive governments in Latin America that are controlled by popular sectors or a coalition of forces that include the popular sectors, agreements which have positive consequence for the people and for national development.  Such cooperation by China with progressive and Left governments contrasts sharply with the hostility of the United States and Western Europe toward these governments, and for this reason, China is held in high regard by the popular movement in Latin America.

       I take the notion of states as central actors in the modern world-system from the world-systems perspective of Immanuel Wallerstein, which was formulated in the 1970s on the basis of Wallerstein’s personal encounter with the African nationalist movements of the 1960s (see “Immanuel Wallerstein” 7/30/2013; “Wallerstein: A Critique” 7/31/0213; “Wallerstein and world-systems analysis” 3/25/2014). The idea makes a great deal of sense from the Third World perspective, inasmuch as states were the principal actors in the imposition of colonialism and neocolonialism; and to the extent that Third World movements have been able to reduce the effects of colonialism and neocolonialism, or to transform the colonial reality into a more democratic situation, it was accomplished by national liberation movements that took control of governments and implemented alternative policies.  So in the modern world-system, states have been central actors in domination and liberation.

       When we take the modern world-system as our unit of analysis and seek to understand its origin and development, we arrive at the understanding not only that nation-states are the principal actors in the world-system, but also that there is a fundamental division between colonizing and colonized nation-states (see “Overcoming the colonial denial” 7/29/2013; and “Dialectic of domination and development” 10/30/2013).  And we see that this colonial divide effects the character of exploitation.  In the colonial situation, the workers are not only exploited in Marx’s sense, receiving wages that are less than the value of the products that they produce; but they also are “superexploited,” receiving less than what is necessary for life (“Unequal exchange” 8/5/2013).  In contrast, in the core region of the world economy, where colonizing nations are located, workers were superexploited during an earlier phase, but as the capitalist world-economy developed, the capitalist class was able to utilize profits from the exploitation of the colonies to make concessions to workers’ movements in the core, thus creating a situation in which core workers, for the most part, are exploited but not superexploited (see “The modern world-economy” 8/2/2013).  The colonial divide also created a difference with respect to the characteristics of social movements.  In the core, the first movements to emerge were formed by workers, artisans, and intellectuals tied to them, leading Marx to formulate the concept of the proletarian vanguard (“Marx on the revolutionary proletariat” 1/14/14).  But in the colonies, the movements from the outset were formed by multiple classes seeking independence from colonial rule in addition to the protection of the social and economic rights of the people, as was illustrated in the Vietnamese Revolution (see ““Ho reformulates Lenin” 5/7/2014).  These national liberation movements were able to attain political independence, but the economic function of labor in providing superexploited labor was preserved in most of the newly independent nations, creating a global neocolonial situation (see “The characteristics of neocolonialism” 9/16/2013). 

      Recognizing the role of the nation-state as the principal actor of the modern world-system in no sense involves overlooking class division in the colony or the neocolonized nation.  Class divisions are central to the dynamics of colonies and neocolonies, and they are the principal factor in shaping the action of states.  The national bourgeoisie typically is composed of an estate bourgeoisie dedicated to the export of agricultural products to the core; and an emerging national industrial bourgeoisie tied to the domestic market.  Mining and banking are generally under foreign ownership, but national ownership also exists in these sectors.  The popular classes include the petit bourgeoisie, industrial workers, artisans, agricultural workers, peasants, and the lumpenproletariat.  During the independence struggle, the popular classes and the national bourgeoisie are allies; but when political independence is attained, their opposed interests become manifest. As the Cuban scholar Jesús Arboleya has noted, during the struggle for independence, the national bourgeoisie represents the interests of the emerging nation before the colonial power; but once independence is attained, the national bourgeoisie represents the interests of the former colonial power within the newly independent nation.  In most cases, the national bourgeoisie controls the “independent” government of the neocolony, and it governs in accordance with its interests and the imperialist interests of the global powers. 

     These social dynamics are generally understood by Third World intellectuals tied to popular social movements.  Knowledge of social dynamics is rooted in social position, and what Third World intellectuals are teaching us is the possibility of combining the vantage point of the worker and the vantage point of the colonized.

     Popular revolutions in the Third World reached an earlier zenith in the 1960s, and since 1995, they have experienced renewal and have reached their most advanced stage.  They seek to take control of governments and to govern in defense of the popular classes and sectors.  When popular revolutions have succeeded in taking control of the state, they typically have engaged in an ideological attack against the national bourgeoisie, accusing it of betraying the nation by virtue of its complicity with imperialism.  As Hugo Chávez would say of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie after the triumph of the popular revolution in Venezuela, “They were on their knees, there is no other way to say it, they were on their knees before the imperial power.” 

     The Third World popular revolutions are anti-imperialist revolutions, seeking to abolish neocolonialism; and they are class revolutions, seeking to dislodge the national bourgeoisie from power and to place the state under the control of delegates of the people, who are charged to govern in defense of the interests and the needs of the people.  The Third World popular revolutions are at the vanguard of the global socialist revolution; they are redefining the meaning of socialism, and they are making significant contributions to the evolution of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. 

      Recognizing the important role of Third World popular revolutions in constructing an alternative to the neocolonial world-system does not imply support for repressive Third World governments.  Repression is normal in the neocolonial situation, for in representing the interests of the national bourgeoisie and international capital, Third World governments must repress popular movements.  The great majority of repressive Third World governments have been allies of imperialism. The Third World popular revolution seeks to displace them with governments that defend popular interests and needs, and that therefore do not have need of repression.  When in power, Third World popular revolutions have developed structures of popular democracy and/or representative democracy, and have succeeded in ending repression and establishing citizen participation.  The global Third World popular revolution does not support Third World governments that repress popular movements, even when such governments have anti-imperialist dimensions.

Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, China, world-systems perspective
0 Comments

The future of the world-system

7/21/2014

2 Comments

 
Posted July 22, 2014

     In his post to the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network (see “States as actors in the world-system” 7/21/2014), Alan Spector writes, “The limits to the capitalist world system are indeed getting squeezed.  Whether the historical pattern of capitalism's limits will be resolved by ‘democratic’ alliances of semi-periphery forces or whether it will be resolved by inter-imperialist war is the question.”

      I do not think that there are signs that the world is moving toward an inter-imperialist war, which I understand as a war between imperialist powers.  Inter-imperialist conflict was a normal tendency of the world-system during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and it culminated in World Wars I and II, which Wallerstein describes as a thirty-year war (1914-45) between two rising imperialist powers, the United States and Germany, fought in the context of the fall from hegemony of the United Kingdom (Wallerstein 1995: 48, 253; 2003:14, 32).  The inter-imperialist war of 1914-45 culminated in US hegemonic domination in a world-system in transition to neocolonialism.

     But the wars since 1990 have a character different from the inter-imperialist conflagrations of the twentieth century.  The wars since 1990 have been directed by the United States, with the support of Western European imperialist powers, against semi-peripheral nations that were violating in some way the rules of the neocolonial world-system and/or challenging the interests of the imperialist powers, although the governments of the attacked nations were not necessarily defending the popular sectors. 

     The US directed wars since 1990, which also can be understood as a continuous war, point not to inter-imperialist war but to the possible emergence of a new form of global fascism, characterized by: military intervention by the global powers in semi-peripheral and peripheral regions to attain economic and commercial goals; repression of radical popular movements by governments in semi-peripheral and peripheral zones allied with the global powers; efforts to destabilize progressive and radical governments in semi-peripheral and peripheral zones, through various means, including ideological manipulation, attacks on production and commerce, and the formation of violent gangs that attack leaders and the people in popular organizations; and within the core, attacks on gays, immigrants, affirmative action programs that defend women and minorities, and social programs that protect the unemployed and the middle and working classes, which have the effect of diverting the attention of the people by creating scapegoats.  With reference to these dynamics, Fidel Castro recently used the phrase, “global military dictatorship.” 

       But an alternative possibility to global neo-fascism and global military dictatorship is the construction from below of a more just and democratic world-system, a process that has been unfolding since 1995, in the form of a global popular movement in opposition to neoliberalism and neocolonialism.  This possible option is represented by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and China (see “The nations of the Global South speak” 6/19/2014), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC for its initials in Spanish) (see “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014), and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) (see “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014).  The leading countries in the emerging alternative world-system include Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Uruguay, and South Africa, all of which have strong traditions of socialist movements.  In Latin America and the Caribbean, the popular movement for an alternative world-system has acquired such force that governments that are still controlled by the national bourgeoisie and the traditional political parties and allied with the United States are compelled to make concessions, such that one may speak of a new political reality in Latin America and the Caribbean.

     A third option is chaos, indicated by growing levels of crime and criminal violence, the increasing use of private security, uncontrolled international migration, the reemergence of religious fundamentalism, and the emergence of ethnic separatist movements.  The neocolonial world-system is characterized by increasing disorder, and it could fragment into regions, each ruled by a regional neo-fascist military dictatorship or by local war lords.

      These three projections for the future of the world-system are observable.  They are emerging in the present, each being pushed by particular political forces and dynamics.  In response to the structural crisis of the world-system, the global power elite is moving core governments toward the development of a neo-fascist global dictatorship.  Various social movements in the core have criticized this turn of the global elite, but the core social movements are limited in depth, and they do not address the systemic problems that are provoking the turn to neo-fascist global military dictatorship.  The core movements, therefore, slow the march toward global dictatorship, but they do not to redirect it.  But another kind of opposition to the global project of the elite is emerging in the Third World, where the movements and governments are seeking to develop an alternative world-system with more just and democratic norms among and within nations.  However, chaos increasingly emerges in social and territorial space where neither the elite nor the popular forces have control. Chaos can emerge as the prevailing global tendency, if neither the bourgeois-fascist adjustments from above nor the anti-colonial and democratic political forces from below can consolidate control. 

     We cannot know or predict the future.  But we can understand the future possibilities that are emerging in the present, and that the final resolution of the structural crisis of the world-system will depend on the mobilization of global political forces.  Inter-imperialist wars have occurred in the past, because colonialism and imperialism have been central to the development of the world-system, and thus competition among imperialist powers is a normal tendency.  But we are now in a new situation.  The world-system has entered a structural crisis, provoked by the fact that it has reached the geographical and ecological limits of the earth.   As a result, new dynamics are emerging; and the world-system is moving toward either a neo-fascist global dictatorship, or a transformation to a more just and democratic world-system, or world-wide chaos.

     Our task as intellectuals of the North is to understand these emerging possibilities and to explain them to our peoples, who are confused by the ideological distortions of the media and the false assumptions of “democratic” political cultures, and they are distracted by consumerism.  The fulfillment of this duty confronts obstacles that we must overcome.  To some extent, we who are intellectuals, like the people, are confused by ideological distortions and false assumptions. Moreover, for those of us who are academics, the development of our understanding is limited by the epistemological assumptions and the fragmented organization of the bureaucratized university.  I believe that the key to an emancipation that would enable understanding is personal encounter with the Third World revolution of national liberation (see various posts in the section on Knowledge).

       The Third World Revolution is the third revolution of the modern world-system.  The first was the bourgeois revolution of Western Europe and North America, which ultimately protected its own interests, sacrificing the rights and needs of the people.  The second was the European proletarian revolution, which in Western Europe and North America became reformist, seduced by the concessions made possible by colonial domination; and which in Eastern Europe became bureaucratized, ultimately collapsing as a result of its limitations and contradictions.  The third revolution is of the Third World, and it is now reaching its most advanced stage, offering for humanity the only viable alternative to the militarist project of the global power elite.  The Third World revolution has accumulated more than 200 years of experience, having begun in 1791, when Toussaint L’Ouverture, a 45-year-old slave with administrative experience, gave political direction to a slave rebellion in the French colony of San Domingo, today known as Haiti (see “Toussaint L’Ouverture” 12/10/2013).


References

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1995. After Liberalism. New York: The New Press.

­­­­__________.  2003.  The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World.  New York: The New Press.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective,

2 Comments

Imperialism, fascism, and democracy

7/18/2014

0 Comments

 
Posted July 23, 2014

     In yesterday’s post, which is part of a dialogue with Alan Spencer, Past President of the Association for Humanist Sociology, I maintained that the militarist foreign policies and the conservative domestic policies of the global elite since 1990 point to the possible emergence of a neo-fascist global dictatorship (“The future of the world-system” 7/22/2014).  This leads to the question, how are the US-directed wars since 1990 different from the US imperialist wars of the period 1945 to 1990?

     The US imperialist wars and interventions of 1945 to 1990 had precedents in various military occupations, military interventions, and diplomatic maneuvering in Latin America and the Caribbean during the first half of the twentieth century.  They included military occupations of Cuba (1898-1902 and 1906-9), Haiti (1915-34) and the Dominican Republic (1916-24); and numerous military interventions in Central America from 1906 to 1932.  And they included the sponsoring of the secession of Panama from Columbia in 1902, in order to facilitate construction of the Panama Canal on US terms; and the establishment of military dictatorships through diplomatic maneuvering during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Regalado 2007:116-18; Arboleya 2008:105-7; “The origin of US imperialist policies” 9/18/2013; “US Imperialism, 1903-1932” 9/19/2013; “Imperialism and the FDR New Deal” 9/20/2013).

     The pre-1945 interventions involved imperialist interventions by a rising imperialist power in the context of an expanding world-system.  Imperialism had emerged as the foundation to US foreign policy in the 1890s, as a result of the need of industrial and agricultural producers to find new markets beyond the frontiers of the United States.  Public debates concerning imperialism were provoked by the acquisition of territories through what US historians call the Spanish-American War, and various perspectives were taken with respect to the implications of US interventions in other lands.  But in these debates, all parties assumed that Africans and persons of African descent, Latin-Americans, indigenous peoples and Asians belonged to “inferior races,” and thus they were incapable of self-government.  This prevailing racist belief made unnecessary any ideological justification of military interventions in Latin America or of European colonial domination of vast regions of Africa and Asia.  It was assumed that all such interventions by the United States and the European colonial powers had a civilizing and beneficial effect (Arboleya 2008; Weston 1972; Wilson 1973).   

     National liberation movements in the Third World and the African-American movement in the United States challenged and overcame the assumption of white superiority.  The movements led to a fundamental change in political culture with respect to “race,” and they made necessary the protection of political and civil rights of all citizens and respect for the sovereignty and equality of all nations and peoples of the world.  Thus, there occurred the political independence of the colonies of Asia and Africa, and a transition to a neocolonial world-system, in which the formal political independence of nations is recognized.  However, the neocolonial world-system would be characterized by structures to facilitate economic, commercial, and financial penetration by the global powers, thus preventing true independence or sovereignty (see “The characteristics of neo-colonialism” 9/16/2013).

     The United States emerged from World War II with unchallenged productive, commercial and financial dominance, and thus the transition to a neocolonial world-system roughly coincided with the emergence of the United States as a hegemonic core power.  In the post-World War II era, US public discourse no longer debated the question of whether or not the United States should intervene in other lands.  A liberal-conservative consensus in support of imperialist policies emerged, with disagreements confined to debates concerning the practical wisdom of a particular intervention.  But US imperialist policies could no longer be based on a presumed assumption of “inferior races.” Justifications would now have to be made on the basis of democratic principles, and thus the Cold War ideology emerged as a powerful ideological weapon, for its portrayed Western “democracies” as threatened by an international communist conspiracy directed by the Soviet Union and China, making necessary US interventions to protect democracy.

      Thus, during the period of 1945 to 1990, the United States undertook a number of imperialist wars, military interventions, and covert actions, designed to protect US control of the natural resources, labor, and markets of the vast peripheral and semi-peripheral regions of the world-economy.  The Cold War ideology presented the United States as a defender of democracy, obscuring its true character as a hegemonic power seeking to preserve structures of imperialist penetration and neocolonial domination. In spite of its democratic claims, US military interventions and covert actions were designed to impede any social movement that sought to act politically to reduce the US economic advantage, which had resulted from the historic capacity of the United States to insert itself in an advantageous manner in the evolving structures of the colonial and neocolonial world-system (see “Slavery, development, and US ascent” 8/30/2013; “Cotton” 9/9/2013; “The military-industrial complex” 8/29/2013).

     But by 1990, the world-system had entered a new situation.  It had reached the geographical limits of the earth and had surpassed its ecological limits, thus constraining profits, expansion and growth.  Meanwhile, the United States had experienced a relative productive, commercial and financial decline, a process that began in the late 1960s as a result of various factors, including its being overextended economically and financially by the Vietnam War.  By 1990, the United States no longer possessed unchallenged productive, commercial, and financial advantage, but it continued to have unchallenged military advantage, a legacy of its earlier hegemony.  In this new situation, the United States intervenes militarily in order to achieve economic and commercial objectives that it no longer has the economic and commercial capacity to attain. 

     Fascism has various components: military expansionism in order to fulfill economic goals through military means as part of a nationalist project of ascent; repression of popular movements, including assassinations, imprisonment, and torture; the formation of violent gangs for the attack of popular organizations; concessions to moderate workers’ organizations; and a nationalist and populist rhetoric that celebrates popular culture.  Fascism has been present as a component of military dictatorships in the Third World that have been tied to imperialism.  And since the Western democracies are based on colonialism and neocolonialism, fascism can be understood as an integral component of the world-system.  Nevertheless, in the evolution of the political culture of the world-system, there has emerged a form of representative democracy that stands against fascism and that affirms the civil and political rights of all citizens and the rights of all nations to sovereignty and independence.  But in the context of the structural crisis of the world-system, the global powers are moving away from these principles of representative democracy and are beginning to move toward a new form of fascism.

     Thus, the US directed wars, interventions, and covert actions since 1990, carried out with the support of Western European imperialist powers, are like the imperialist interventions of the period 1945-90, in that they have been conducted against semi-peripheral nations that were violating in some way the rules of the neocolonial world-system and/or challenging the interests of the imperialist powers, although the governments of the attacked nations were not necessarily defending the popular sectors.  But the wars and interventions since 1990 are also different from 1945-90, because they are being carried out by an economically declining power that still has military dominance, and it is using its military strength to attain economic objectives, and thus they are beginning to acquire the characteristics of fascism.

     The emerging neo-fascist global dictatorship is structurally different from the neocolonial world-system.  Neocolonialism seeks to control ideologically rather than through force, even though its foundation lies in force, conquest, and colonialism.  Neocolonialism endeavors to give the appearance of democracy, and thus it requires providing support to key actors, such as the middle and working classes in the core and the national bourgeoisie in the periphery and semi-periphery.  But the world-system has reached the geographical limits of the earth, creating a situation in which it is not sustainable.  Confronting this reality, the limited forms of democracy and sovereignty allowed by the neocolonial world-system have been increasingly abandoned by the global elite since 1980, as it turns to a new form of fascism. 

     The emergence of a neo-fascist global dictatorship would not mark the end of the world-system but the evolution of the world-system to a new stage.  It would mean the end of the dominance of the idea of democracy, which emerged during the eighteenth century, but which, under the constraints of the established structures of the world-system, could go no further than representative democracy and formal political independence.  The world-system was established on a colonial foundation of force and conquest, and by turning to fascism in its hour of crisis, it is returning to its roots. 

     But the other possibilities projected for the future, namely, an alternative more just and democratic system and the emergence of chaos and fragmentation (see “The future of the world-system” 7/22/2014), would represent the end of the world-system itself.  A just and democratic world-system established by popular movements from below would emancipate the world-system from its colonial foundation, thus establishing a different world-system.  Perhaps we should call it something to help bring it about, something like “Socialism for the twenty-first century.”  It was so named by Hugo Chávez, and he is present, calling on all of us to participate in its construction (see “Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.”

      From the vantage point of universal human values, the transformation of the world-system to a different and more just and democratic world-system is the best option for humanity.  It would represent a fulfillment of the hopes of Marx and the hopes of the peoples of the Third World, who have demonstrated that, in the words of Fidel, “this humanity has a tremendous thirst for social justice.”


References

Arboleya, Jesús.  2008.  La Revolución del Otro Mundo.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Regalado, Roberto.  2007.  Latin America at the Crossroads: Domination, Crisis, Popular Movements, and Political Alternatives.  New York: Ocean Press.

Weston, Rubin Francis.  1972.  Racism in U.S. Imperialism: The Influence of Racial Assumptions on American Foreign Policy, 1893-1946.  Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.

Wilson, Willam J. 1973.  Power, Racism, and Privilege: Race Relations in Theoretical and Sociohistorical Perspectives.  New York: The Free Press.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, fascism, dictatorship
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Author: Charles McKelvey

    Retired professor, writer,  and Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist revolutionary

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Blog Index
    Bolivia
    Charismatic Leaders
    China
    Critique Of The Left
    Cuban History
    Cuba Today
    Ecuador
    Environment
    French Revolution
    Gay Rights
    Haitian Revolution
    Knowledge
    Latin American History
    Latin American Right
    Latin American Unity
    Marx
    Marxism-Leninism
    Mexican Revolution
    Miscellaneous
    Neocolonialism
    Neoliberalism
    Nicaragua
    North-South Cooperation
    Presidential Elections 2016
    Press
    Public Debate In USA
    Race
    Religion And Revolution
    Revolution
    Russian Revolution
    South-South Cooperation
    Third World
    Trump
    US Ascent
    US Imperialism
    Vanguard
    Venezuela
    Vietnam
    Wallerstein
    Women And Revolution
    World History
    World-System
    World-System Crisis

    Archives

    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

More Ads


website by Sierra Creation