Get ready for the shift key, baby.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent selling off of that country's public assets to gangs of oligarchs, there has not yet emerged a single force to rival the considerable imperial power of the United States of America. Instead, principled anti-imperialists must cobble together a host of imperfect nations and political movements to form a hodgepodge coalition against the continuing encroachment of the American ruling class and its interests over the oppressed peoples of the world. This support brings with it its own problems, but in light of the magnitude of America's crimes against the globe, such "deals with the devil" are palatable by default. As such, I thought it would be useful to lay out both the case against American imperialism and what are, to my mind, the necessarily critical sympathies that must be developed to effectively combat the empire on the geopolitical stage. Building a movement here at home that exhibits these sympathies is essential for long-term success, and every avenue must be explored — even posts on Internet joke forums about how Donald Trump is a Creamsicle clown man, which he is.
I ask that this thread not devolve into pointless digressions into how I or other anti-imperialists unequivocally love every listed government or head of state or think they never made a mistake. Besides being patently untrue, it's not the purpose of the thread. For much of these countries, my goal — and the goal of many other anti-imperialists — is improvement by means of mass workers' movements, which can better develop in periods of economic uncertainty brought on by anti-imperialist action. This isn't "accelerationism;" it's an understanding that apparatuses of repression are harder to maintain with a weakened economy. The same, of course, goes for the United States.
FBI/NSA/ETC note: I am not advocating for violence here, or anywhere else. This is analysis only. Incidentally, I hope you are enjoying your forums experience.
I. What Is Imperialism?
As with most arguments, it's useful to define terms before delving into the nitty-gritty. The most important one, of course, is imperialism. When I and other Marxists use it, it is in specific reference to the concept as laid out by Vladimir Lenin in his paramount work, "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism."
Without getting into the Marxian economic principle of surplus value, to most simply sum up Lenin's definition, I'll quote a bit from the text.
Vladimir Lenin posted:It is characteristic of capitalism in general that the ownership of capital is separated from the application of capital to production, that money capital is separated from industrial or productive capital, and that the rentier who lives entirely on income obtained from money capital, is separated from the entrepreneur and from all who are directly concerned in the management of capital. Imperialism, or the domination of finance capital, is that highest stage of capitalism in which this separation reaches vast proportions. The supremacy of finance capital over all other forms of capital means the predominance of the rentier and of the financial oligarchy; it means that a small number of financially “powerful” states stand out among all the rest.
If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate. And so, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
In short, imperialism is a confluence of phenomena which occur at certain stages of development in capitalist economy. As monopolies are established over the course of time and capital finds itself in a smaller and smaller group's hands, and as the rate of profit tends to fall, it becomes necessary for capitalist countries at similar developmental levels to collude — organically, not conspiratorially — into cartels, which begin to extract resources and labor from the underdeveloped countries. Imperialism is both the stage of capitalism under which this transformation occurs, and the process by which this value is extracted.
What's most important about this theory is that nearly a century after his death, Lenin has been proven entirely right. This pamphlet was written in 1917, presaging the creation of the International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the World Bank, the League of Nations, the United Nations, the G7 Summit, the European Union and most other international organizations you can think of. You don't have to be an InfoWars conspiracist to observe this level of cooperation among capitalist nations, combine it with what we know of 20th century history and conclude that the interests of these economies line up naturally, by virtue of the classes that own the means of production. No shadowy cabal required.
Secondary to this is Lenin's theory of "revolutionary defeatism," the belief that because wars are fought on behalf of ruling classes rather than the people of a country, ultimately the best possible option for the working classes of those countries is defeat. This goes against all intuitive logic and propaganda in an imperial country, but the defeat of a ruling class would strengthen conditions for the creation of a revolutionary working class. This theory was developed in the April Theses, The Tasks of Revolutionary Social Democracy in the European War and The Defeat of One's Own Government in the Imperialist War.
II. Why Combat Imperialism?
While I could go into detail on some of the domestic imperial action the American government has undertaken, it's perhaps best to keep things focused on violations of sovereignty abroad. We can get into the United States' policies of mass incarceration and suppression of protests later in the thread — to say nothing of the conditions which led to the United States becoming an imperial power — if people want.
In any case, not since Rome have we seen this kind of imperial fervor. No force in history has had the technology, the manpower and the unmitigated gall to wreak havoc on other nations' right to self-determination. With this force has come death, deprivation and a ravaged Third World on a scale never observed in history. How could we look the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the eye in 1945, much less now, with the knowledge that was only the beginning?
To better lay out my point, here is a list of interventions, military or otherwise, that the United States has performed since the Second World War. My source, Killing Hope, is exhaustively researched and required reading for anyone interested in the subject, though it is now a little out of date. Former State Department and CIA employee William Blum can only write so fast, after all, and it's not his fault he can't keep up with the latest bouts of pillaging and mayhem.
- China 1945-1960s
- Italy 1947-1948
- Greece 1947 to early 1950s
- Philippines 1940s and 1950s
- Korea 1945-present
- Albania 1949-1953
- Eastern Europe 1948-1956
- Germany 1950s
- Iran 1953
- Guatemala 1953-54
- Costa Rica 1950s
- Syria 1956-57
- The Middle East 1957-58
- Indonesia 1957-58
- Western Europe 1950s and 1960s
- British Guyana 1953-1964
- Soviet Union 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, etc.
- Italy (again) 1950s to 1970s
- Vietnam 1950-1973
- Cambodia 1955-1973
- Hungary 1956
- Laos 1957-1973
- Haiti 1959-1963
- Guatemala (again) 1960
- France/Algeria 1960s
- Ecuador 1960-63
- Congo 1960-64
- Brazil 1961-64
- Peru 1960-65
- Dominican Republic 1960-66
- Cuba 1959-present
- Indonesia (again) 1965
- Ghana 1966
- Uruguay 1964-70
- Chile 1964-73
- Greece (again) 1964-74
- Bolivia 1964-75
- Guatemala (again again) 1962 to 1980s
- Costa Rica (again) 1970-71
- Iraq 1972-75
- Australia 1973-75
- Angola 1975 to 1980s
- Zaire 1975-78
- Jamaica 1976-1980
- Seychelles 1979-81
- Grenada 1979-84
- Poland 1980-85
- Morocco 1983
- Suriname 1982-84
- Libya 1981-89
- Nicaragua 1978-90
- Panama 1969-91
- Bulgaria 1990
- Albania 1991
- Iraq (again) 1990-91
- Afghanistan 1979-92
- El Salvador 1980-94
- Haiti (again) 1986-94
- Yugoslavia 1999
- Afghanistan (again) 2001-present
- Venezuela 2002
- Bolivia 2002
- Iraq (again again) 2003-present
- Ukraine 2004
- Iran (again) 2009
- Honduras 2009
- Libya (again) 2011-present
- Syria 2011-present
- Ukraine (again) (probably) 2013-present
- Venezuela (again) (probably) 2014-present
For all America's high-minded rhetoric treating "democracy" and "freedom" as foundational values, we sure do enjoy preventing their exercise elsewhere in the world. And at home, but that's another story.
"What about interventions from so-called anti-imperialists?" you may ask. A fair question. Here they are. You may notice some of these countries and dates coincide with previously listed ones. Why might that be, I wonder?
Also worth noting: I'm being very generous and including instances of aid and support to movements of national liberation, and extending some dates to include benign trade and diplomatic relationships. I've also included some that could more accurately be described as border disputes, such as Chechnya and Tibet. There are very few examples of direct military engagement against sovereign nations on the part of these countries.
Soviet Union/Russian Federation
- Korea 1950-53
- Hungary 1956
- Cuba 1959-1965
- Vietnam 1965-73
- Angola 1975-1989
- Afghanistan 1979-89
- Nicaragua 1982-84
- Chechnya 2000
- Georgia 2008
- Ukraine 2014
- Syria 2015-present
People's Republic of China
- Vietnam 1950-73
- Tibet 1950
- Cambodia 1975-79
- Angola 1975-89
- Vietnam (again) 1979
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
- Korea 1950-53
- A series of Keystone Kops almost-conflict events perpetuated both by DPRK and Republic of Korea forces in the demilitarized zone (1953-present)
Islamic Republic of Iran
None. Invaded by Iraq in 1980.
I have not included the Syrian Arab Army, as they're deep in civil war against roughly 50,000 different factions, some getting support from imperial nations, some getting support from anti-imperial nations and also Daesh is there. Plus Syria's place as anti-imperialist force is murky, as the armed forces were behind the 1949 coup (which I forgot to include in the U.S. list! Whoopsie!) and the Ba'ath party is a fair- or foul-weather friend to anti-imperialism, at best. At the moment, they stand opposed to American gamesmanship, but as is the case with many countries in the Middle East, their relationship with the United States can change.
Anyway, the point is, these actions pale in comparison to the number of times the United States has interfered in the matters of other countries, generally bringing along the usual suspects: Pestilence, War, Famine and Death. There's probably some sad soul who's crunched the numbers and come up with an imperialism death toll, but I haven't included it here because calculating "existential evil" in terms of Megadeaths is more than a little macabre. Safe to assume it is high, to say nothing of the economic impact of crisis after crisis, invasion after invasion, at the expense of both imperialism's victims and the American people.
III. Who Combats Imperialism?
Here we come to what will no doubt be the most controversial section of the post. Let me again emphasize "critical support" is not the same thing as "unequivocal support," and if someone wants to get into the details of why one of these places is Very Bad, link me to the relevant thread and we can discuss it there. This thread is meant to address imperialism and anti-imperialism and the alliances therein, not the specific policies of the DPRK or Syria or whomever.
Observe, the ragtag collection of heads of state standing against the American empire. I've listed them in descending order, in terms of how I'd support them outside the context of American imperialism. Some, like Cuba and China, get my support generally. Others, like Russia, do not. But, as I say in the title, these "devil's bargains" are necessary to bring an end to the most destructive world power in all of recorded history. When that's happened, anti-imperialists can focus on improvements in those countries. Bringing the war machine to a grinding halt takes priority for the vast majority of the world's people.
Republic of Cuba
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Flag_of_Cuba.svg/800px-Flag_of_Cuba.svg.png
http://newshour-tc.pbs.org/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/RTR4TRK0.jpg
The granddaddy of antiimperialismo. Cuba has withstood countless attacks on its sovereignty from the United States, both before and after the 1959 revolution. Attempted invasions, assassinations and the cruel embargo which has throttled Cuba's trade relationships haven't forced the tiny island nation to budge an inch. Through all this aggression, Cuba has managed to develop ground-breaking medical treatments, such as the creation of a lung cancer vaccine and the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Not only that, but through the years Cuba has seen women make up an even greater percentage of the country's high-skill workforce and legislature, with 48.9% women in its parliament and higher than 50% representation for doctors, attorneys and university students. Cuba isn't perfect — as no nation is — but compared to its neighbors in the Caribbean, it's leaps and bounds ahead despite adverse circumstances. It remains an anti-imperial bulwark, 90 miles away from an enemy who would like nothing more than to see it destroyed, no matter Obama's rhetoric.
People's Republic of China
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Flag_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China.svg/1024px-Flag_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China.svg.png
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02262/XiJinping_2262685b.jpg
Though the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s saw China turn to the United States for assistance — and in all likelihood dealt a death blow to 20th century communism in doing so — China is ever-wary of its new economic friendship. There's little chance of all-out war or military conflict breaking out between the two, but Xi Jingping is smart enough to know the Chinese economy should continue to be built up in case things begin to heat up. The bloviating of politicians in America against the PRC has reminded China the US is a temporary ally at best, which is probably why Xi has begun to reach out to nations in Africa. "The more friends, the better" is good policy all around for a nation still finding its footing in a world both economically and militarily dominated by a country that all too recently considered it an enemy.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/21/Flag_of_Vietnam.svg/900px-Flag_of_Vietnam.svg.png
http://img.v3.news.zdn.vn/w480/Uploaded/rugtnv/2016_03_31/dai_quang_desktop.jpg
Similarly to China, Vietnam is undergoing a period of reform to maintain socialism in a post-Soviet world. Obviously, the United States' loss in the Vietnam War dealt a blow to its credibility as an imperial power, but since the end of the Cold War has been reasserting itself in new, terrifying ways. Vietnam and China have gotten over their differences in the Cold War era and have since become strong trade partners. China appears to be leading the way for the Vietnamese, and as such neither has made any attempt to disrupt relations with the United States. But that's globalization, folks.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Flag_of_North_Korea.svg/1600px-Flag_of_North_Korea.svg.png
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/2016/05/07/kim-jong-un.jpg
Now we're delving into more aggressive opponents of American imperialism, and consequently getting into countries more heavily propagandized against. As I said, there are other places to talk about the DPRK government and how unreliable our reporting is about this country. It throws suspicion on everything we hear. No matter your opinion, the DPRK suffered unimaginable loss during the Korean War, with a full third of the population killed and the city of Pyongyang leveled by the fighting. With that bloody history fresh on the mind, and with the United States military playing war games and undergoing nuclear tests on its border, does it come as a surprise the DPRK would emphasize its military as a means of self-defense? The people of Korea know very well what American invasion and occupation is like. And, to most Westerners' surprise, it's not just the north that wants the US out. The "Sunshine Policy" of the late '90s and early '00s was making great strides toward a friendlier relationship between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea. But the Bush administration's "Axis of Evil" saber rattling put a stop to that. With American troop movement interfering with peace and reunification, the ROK has its own share of anti-imperialists, despite the prevailing opinion of Americans who've never visited. Therefore the ROK could be included as an "honorary member" of the anti-imperialist bloc, if a government similar to Kim Dae-Sung's ever made its way back into power.
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Flag_of_Venezuela.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Venezuela.svg.png
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02623/Nicolas-Maduro_2623765b.jpg
Venezuela's in a bad way, and in no state to take the kind of defiant stance against the Yanquis the way it could under Hugo Chavez. Dependence on oil for revenue meant plummeting economic growth and skyrocketing inflation when the price of crude dropped, and the Venezuelan people are worse for wear. Nothing like we've seen before, though, right?
Plurinational State of Bolivia
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Flag_of_Bolivia_(state).svg/2000px-Flag_of_Bolivia_(state).svg.png
http://s1.ibtimes.com/sites/www.ibtimes.com/files/2016/02/18/bolivias-president-evo-morales-speaking-even-capital-la-paz.jpg
Evo Morales has tangled with American empire and lived to tell the tale. An indigenous activist who rose to power on a platform of land reform and wealth redistribution to the rural poor, his presidential campaign was sabotaged by the American political consultancy employed by his right-wing opponent. This is an example of the "soft" imperialism which has taken the place of direct military action in many countries. NGOs and extragovernmental groups do the heavy lifting formerly undertaken by the state, and the United States government reaps the rewards. Obviously, this isn't as controlled a process as the CIA monkeyshines of yesteryear, but the end result is the same. Both the 2005 documentary "Our Brand Is Crisis" and the 2015 fiction film of the same name explore the methods by which Morales was first defeated, though somewhat perversely in the latter the amoral consultants are the heroes. The documentary, at least, is worth a watch if you're interested in how America flexes its muscles in the 21st century.
Russian Federation
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/flags/countrys/zzzflags/rularge.gif
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02836/putin_2836730b.jpg
A far cry from the geopolitical rival which stood toe-to-toe with the United States during the 20th century, the former Soviet Union nevertheless provides counterweight to American empire. The "gangster capitalism" of Russia is fracturing, but the United Russia government continues to antagonize the United States by maneuvering against it in places like Syria and Ukraine. Russia ranks low on this list due to its capitalist restoration and its poor treatment of LGBT citizens, inferior to the United States (since about five years ago, at least). With the Russian people still approving of the Soviet system over the current one by a wide margin, I'm hopeful Lenin's theory of revolutionary defeatism proves correct and Russia's chest-beating against the far better-equipped United States will create conditions ripe for the restoration of socialism.
Islamic Republic of Iran
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Flag_of_Iran.svg/2000px-Flag_of_Iran.svg.png
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Hassan-Rouhani.jpg
Relations between the United States and Iran have most assuredly thawed thanks to the Obama administration's nuclear deal. But as anyone who's paid attention to American politics knows, this newfound common ground is shaky, at best. The United States, as with all the countries on this list, has a troubled history with Iran. A new president — even a President Hillary Clinton or (lol) Bernie Sanders — could reverse the mild progress made in recent years. With this in mind, Iran is hedging its bets without resorting to the kind of fiery rhetoric employed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Remembering the Iranian Revolution of 1979 was in direct response to the US-backed rule of the Shah, it's unlikely Iran will ever fully trust the Americans, and with good reason. Most candidates for president this cycle appear to be spoiling for a fight with Iran, so it warrants a place on this list as a perpetual thorn in the ruling class' side.
Syrian Arab Republic
http://syriaflag.facts.co/syriaflagimage1.png
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01925/Bashar-al-Assad-su_1925765a.jpg
Syria, like most Ba'athist countries, is a temporary ally to anti-imperialists, as their allegiances have changed repeatedly over time. This is, shockingly, largely the result of American meddling in the region over the last half century. For the moment, the Assad government in Syria is positioned against US-backed rebel groups in the civil war, and Russia has made Assad's stability a priority. American policy has been wishy-washy on Syria, with various voices in government calling for Assad's ouster and others choosing to emphasize the threat of Daesh, who have been the beneficiaries of American arms shipments, intended or otherwise. Syria is a mess, and the best option here for anti-imperialists is to push for an end to the war and an end to American incursion in the beleaguered nation. "Hands Off Syria" is the rallying cry; while the Kurdistan Workers' Party is probably the most progressive force in the country, our government's support of the YPG should be viewed with suspicion. "Follow the money" isn't an idle axiom.
Assorted Nation-States in the Global South
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Flag_of_Eritrea_(1993-1995).svg/2000px-Flag_of_Eritrea_(1993-1995).svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Flag_of_Ecuador.svg/1024px-Flag_of_Ecuador.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Flag_of_Nepal.svg/1000px-Flag_of_Nepal.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Flag_of_Laos.svg/1280px-Flag_of_Laos.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Flag_of_Angola.svg/1280px-Flag_of_Angola.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Nicaragua_(1924).svg/2000px-Flag_of_Nicaragua_(1924).svg.png
These are countries which haven't reached a stage of development to offer strong resistance to the United States — as the risks are too high — but still represent a budding threat to imperialism with their very existence. In short, states which are unwilling or less willing to do the United States' bidding, but aren't belligerent about it. (Plus Nepal's flag kicks serious ass.)
Movements of National Liberation and Independence
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/South_Asian_Communist_Banner.svg/1000px-South_Asian_Communist_Banner.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Flag_of_Palestine.svg/1200px-Flag_of_Palestine.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg/2000px-Flag_of_the_EZLN.svg.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Houthis_Logo.pnghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ef/Flag_of_the_FARC-EP.svg/2000px-Flag_of_the_FARC-EP.svg.png
Here we get into the REALLY abstract, as the anti-imperialist movements without a foothold on state power number in the many dozens, perhaps over a hundred. Their ideologies vary; there are explicitly Marxist movements along with nationalist and popular uprisings. Not all are engaging in armed conflict with their respective governments, though others are. It's a grab bag of motivations and characters for each, though all have one thing in common: Were they to win, America would lose a friendly force somewhere on the globe. Some are taking place in countries which the United States considers allies. Some are in "non-aligned" territory — many, many in Africa especially. Some are even in the aforementioned anti-imperialist countries, as success for those movements means a more progressive force in control of a nation, and we can then extrapolate a stronger and more unified coalition against imperialism. Syria is a good example of this — the PKK's winning of territory in Kobane and generally being a bee in Erdogan's bonnet spells great potential for a future member of an anti-imperial force in the form of an independent Kurdistan. Of course, since these movements have not yet won, and are struggling in countries with various levels of economic development, it's hard to say when they'll become a meaningful player in the fight against imperialism. I mention them here, in the abstract, to show just how much of an uphill battle this is, and how long this project will take.
IV. Victory Begins at Home
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Code_Pink_July_4.jpghttp://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/vietnam_war_protest_ap_img.jpghttps://www.democracynow.org/images/story/64/22764/splash/feb15crowd.jpg
What, then, is to be done? Most of us are no doubt living in the nerve centers of the imperial power base, either in the United States or Western Europe. How can a person's commitment to this position translate to real political action?
The obvious answer is organizing and nonviolent protest. Major cities will have quite a few orgs to join, whether specifically anti-war or anti-imperialism or part of a broader political tapestry. We've seen the results of disciplined mass action — sustained anti-imperial sentiment had a hand in bringing an end to the Vietnam War, it turned public opinion against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has forced the empire to exert its power in more complicated, more technologically advanced ways to avoid rocking the boat with a war-weary populace. This is not only more expensive to maintain, it means the imperial hold on a subject nation is more tenuous. Without a strong military presence, after all, absolute control is harder to come by. Proxy forces can rebel — one's own soldiers rarely do.
All this strategy is being discussed in the abstract, mind you. Conditions change based on the situation, so specifics will be different in each avenue of struggle. Again, let me emphasize that in encouraging strong anti-imperialism, I do not advocate for any illegal activity. Doing so is, obviously, illegal, but also counterproductive. It's easy enough for the capitalist state to repress dissent — Lord knows it's foolish to make it any easier.
V. Conclusions
You'll notice, of course, that many of the countries listed here have been designated the worst of the worst by our government, the media and the general cultural attitude in imperial nations. While some claims might be true, it's important to keep in mind the biases and ideology at play anytime we receive news about one of these places. Whether we mean to or not, we're influenced by the dominant ideology of our country, which is in our case capitalist ideology. Which narratives will find purchase here? Which won't? Is it more or less likely the horror stories we hear about these places find our eyes and ears because we live in a self-perpetuating system? Consider the chances of a major publisher printing any work in opposition to this ideology, and then wonder why most counter-hegemonic research and history is found under the aegis of academia, a relatively "safe space" due, not coincidentally, to its lack of popular appeal.
Again, this is not tinfoil mania. Political economies, histories and analysis of countries which have resisted imperialism do exist. They're well-researched and written by academics in good standing who, as far as I know, have passed a mental competency test. But no one reads them, or knows they exist. There's a reason why. If people are interested, I can link some good ones.
Previous attempts to talk about counter-narratives to the imperial consensus have resulted in the threads being closed and the OPs penalized. I'm hopeful this can be a productive venue for discussion without the endless parade of empty digressions that plagued those endeavors.
In summation,
Edited by Guyovich ()
Political economies, histories and analysis of countries which have resisted imperialism do exist. They're well-researched and written by academics in good standing who, as far as I know, have passed a mental competency test. But no one reads them, or knows they exist. There's a reason why. If people are interested, I can link some good ones.
I'm not really an established poster here but... I am interested in this. Please share!
Guyovich posted:
Iran?
Some of the other ALBA countries, like Bolivia and Nicaragua, might also belong here
Most first posts are going to be corrections but I wanted to make sure you were told that this is a great post
of course, this is because they never read the damn book:
Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practised imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital.
Urbandale posted:Maybe label ROK as contested or something tho cuz the country's role as US puppet is/was pretty brazen.
yeah rok went in mostly for surprise value, the government especially under park is still dependent on us aid and military support. the people hate the yanks for the most part, of course.
will edit in the places mentioned and do a couple brush-ups for better grammar, etc. i can't wait to post this elsewhere and be banned. love bans.
damnNAFTA posted:Guyovich posted:
Iran?
i won't link pdfs directly here but check your pms soon.
The Americans are being held to a higher standard than the other powers. How can Jamaica 1976-1980 be listed as an imperialist intervention, but the standard for the everyone else is direct military intervention? The list excludes Soviet interventions that would be listed if they were carried out by the Americans, e.g. Nigeria v. the Biafrans or the ANC v. Apartheid South Africa.
also it may be worth mentioning that often the americans were obligated to invade many of those countries with it's army, whilst leftist support often went towards popular domestic movements that only needed material and moral support. that might be a misreading on my part, though.
Thank you for putting in the time to make the effort post, it's a good one.
I am going to break forums discipline and use imperial orthography for this. One question I've always had, but have always struggled to express, is something like: Conceptually, can one say that neoliberalism is a more modern treatment of Lenin's development of imperialism? Is this analogous to the way in which a classical theory in mathematics becomes either supplanted or enhanced by a new one, like for example studying the behavior of functions in analysis from their definitions versus Weierstrauss' treatment of functions as being power series expansions on a domain?
Or is it more accurate to say that neoliberalism is just a particular (and more recent) flavor of imperialism, as a set of policies/institutional networks that dialectically accounts for the collapse of Bretton-Woods, the near-total movement of production to the periphery, the rise of information technologies, etc.
In short, how does one distinguish, on a conceptual and observational level, between neoliberalism and imperialism? Certainly neoliberalism is imperialist by definition, but is the converse true?
I hope these aren't dumb questions.
Soviet_Salami posted:I'll play devil's advocate.
The Americans are being held to a higher standard than the other powers. How can Jamaica 1976-1980 be listed as an imperialist intervention, but the standard for the everyone else is direct military intervention? The list excludes Soviet interventions that would be listed if they were carried out by the Americans, e.g. Nigeria v. the Biafrans or the ANC v. Apartheid South Africa.
there's definitely stuff missing that could be included due either to my forgetting or not even knowing. i'm adding a couple sections about assorted other anti-imperial nation-states and liberation movements that have yet to seize state power. plus a lil thing about domestic anti-imperialism, too.
cars posted:ecuador also reps the bolivarian revolution & the economist expects correa to be gone by year's end
Yea, probably Zimbabwe too then?
tears posted:Anti-imperialist insurgencies?
We could include liberated zones in Colombia, the Philippines, India, Turkey, and Palestine and to a lesser extent Mexico and Kurdistan
insta_gramsci posted:I am going to break forums discipline and use imperial orthography for this. One question I've always had, but have always struggled to express, is something like: Conceptually, can one say that neoliberalism is a more modern treatment of Lenin's development of imperialism? Is this analogous to the way in which a classical theory in mathematics becomes either supplanted or enhanced by a new one, like for example studying the behavior of functions in analysis from their definitions versus Weierstrauss' treatment of functions as being power series expansions on a domain?
Or is it more accurate to say that neoliberalism is just a particular (and more recent) flavor of imperialism, as a set of policies/institutional networks that dialectically accounts for the collapse of Bretton-Woods, the near-total movement of production to the periphery, the rise of information technologies, etc.
In short, how does one distinguish, on a conceptual and observational level, between neoliberalism and imperialism? Certainly neoliberalism is imperialist by definition, but is the converse true?
I hope these aren't dumb questions.
i don't think they're dumb questions. from what i know of things, neoliberalism seems like a "stage within stages" with what was already an imperial capitalism. that is, the character of the economy hasn't changed — monopolies still in place, collusion strong, extraction abroad continuing — but as circumstances allow, the ruling class has even more freedom to exploit both the domestic population and the peripheral working classes. this has probably gone hand-in-hand with the increased efficiencies brought on by technologies and the march toward globalization.
EmanuelaBrolandi posted:Canada is hardcore af on immigration. I have like a dozen friends who are white americans that have been turned away
A couple years back they reset immigration waiting lists. Have you been waiting 8 years to see your family? Fuck you, apply again, back of the line. Have you been a temporary foreign slaveworker for a year? Fuck you, apply again, back of the line. Did you apply last week? Fuck you, apply again, back of the line. iirc no one even pretended to justify it.
This coincided with legislation which allowed employers to pay non-citizens half of minimum wage.
Soviet_Salami posted:I'll play devil's advocate.
The Americans are being held to a higher standard than the other powers. How can Jamaica 1976-1980 be listed as an imperialist intervention, but the standard for the everyone else is direct military intervention? The list excludes Soviet interventions that would be listed if they were carried out by the Americans, e.g. Nigeria v. the Biafrans or the ANC v. Apartheid South Africa.
I had to look up Morocco 1983 because I had never heard of that and it's one guy alleging the CIA showed the king a compromising video of his general, and that general later died in a car crash that might have been staged. Someone tell Immortal Technique bout this shit.
shriekingviolet posted:EmanuelaBrolandi posted:
Canada is hardcore af on immigration. I have like a dozen friends who are white americans that have been turned away
A couple years back they reset immigration waiting lists. Have you been waiting 8 years to see your family? Fuck you, apply again, back of the line. Have you been a temporary foreign slaveworker for a year? Fuck you, apply again, back of the line. Did you apply last week? Fuck you, apply again, back of the line. iirc no one even pretended to justify it.
This coincided with legislation which allowed employers to pay non-citizens half of minimum wage.
I work with newly arrived migrants and it makes me hate my country
getfiscal posted:Canada has generally been an importer of money-capital investment, primarily from Britain and the US imperialists. We then export profits to those countries. Presently half of our oil industry is owned by foreign capital, for example, and oil is a major industry in Canada.