dinsdag 23 februari 2010

Anti-imperialist united front 7

I will analyse now some characteristics of capitalism and how they express in the stage of imperialism. (As I see it…, beginning here or after the first part of this analysis here)
Imperialism is in a fundamental crisis, which she can NOT “solve” and at the same time “save every-bodies interests above all classes”.
Actual imperialism sits already since the beginning of the eighties in a crisis of overcapacity. Imperialism could (TEMPORARLY) save the continuance of her existence by submitting the world to HER solution: a controlled (and often paid by the working class) “elimination of production-capacities” and a general increase of the level of exploitation of the working class AND of the under colonial production-relations living popular masses.
These methods however can not result in a “revival” because it will be based on a higher exploitation and so more poverty of the working class AND the colonised popular masses (and less ability to BUY commodities which has to satisfy essential NEEDS).
It will result in a growing anti-imperialist resistance, beginning with economic class-struggle and/or resistance against the material effects of the higher level of exploitation in the imperialist production-relations.
For imperialism remains only one solution: violence, repression, fascism and colonialism-defending war or “military intervention”.
This is one of the important reasons for the working-class (in the imperialist centres as well as in the colonised part of the world) join forces to destroy imperialism by expropriating the imperialist capitalist class (as well as in the imperialist centres as in the colonised regions), dismantle all elements of imperialist state-power. The working class united with all elements from other classes who become conscious that the objective anti-imperialist interests of the working class are in their own favour will replace, after the revolution and after the expropriation of the imperialist capitalists, the capitalist production-relations - by way of socialist plan-economy – by communist production-relations. The period of socialism or socialist plan-economy IS in fact the transition-period to communism in which all elements of capitalist production-system will step for step (more by conviction, discussion, ideological struggle than by compelling) will be replaced by elements of communist production-system.
All what is part of the concrete capitalist state has to be destroyed and to be replaces by a STATE of the working class in alliance with all the forces that have joined the anti-imperialist struggle.

A CONCRETE analyse of ACTUAL capitalism (so IMPERIALISM) will conclude what has to be seen as the class (and what is its concrete composition) that has objectively all interests that imperialism disappears: the working class.
Subjectively (so not always already rational reasoned) the working class (also in the imperialist centres) is feeling that capitalism can not bring something positive anymore. As long as that “feeling” is not clearly rational argued, will the class -struggle be limited to a struggle against the demolition of the “still having achievements” or to a struggle for possible positive reforms in case of wages or working-conditions, or to “slow” down the increasing of exploitation-level.
Almost the whole population in the by colonial production-relations controlled regions is confronted each day with the fact that everything is better than the continued existence of those colonial production-relations in which imperialism has submitted those regions.
More and more the notion is rising that there can only be a qualitative amelioration when imperialism is beaten.
Whole popular masses are kept (by all means) in total insecurity, in total poverty so that the few needed work-forces that imperialism need locally not has the possibility to sell their workforce for a reasonable wage. In fact sometimes their workforce is not bought but quasi “robbed” (so resulting in almost slavery).
But at the same time, the mass of wages of those workers is almost the only income for those popular masses out of which are coming those work-forces.
This is an aspect of what I will call: colonial production-relations of imperialism. This result in the fact that the most of the popular masses in the colonized regions in the world are an integrated part of the working-class having the same fundamental interests to beat imperialism.
The masses of peasants (and the “owners” of little commercial or production-activities or “family-enterprises”) in the ACTUAL CONCRETE level of development of imperialism can more be considered as “worker working for wage by pieces” or as “home-workers”, and so more be considered as a part of the working class than as “independent very little capitalists” or as “petty-bourgeois aiming to be capitalists”. So they (OBJECTIVELY but perhaps not always subjectively) are more a part of the working-class than of the petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie.
This means not, that the class-conscience of all those workers is already proletarian. Contrarily; and influenced ideologically by imperialism a lot of people in those masses have still a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois class-CONSCIENCE. But “own” experiences together with education, propaganda and education will raise a true proletarian class-conscious by them. (There lays a task for the van-guard part of the working-class)
It is in the interest of imperialism itself to find IN those popular masses in the colonised regions, persons or groups of persons who will connect their interests to those of the continuing of colonial production-relations or the continuing of imperialism itself. Those persons or group of persons, although objectively not making a part of the capitalist class choose freely (for all kind of opportunist reasons) for a bourgeois class-position.
In a similar way, an important part of the working class in the imperialist centres are strongly influenced by reformism (a bourgeois class-ideology protecting the continuing existence of imperialism) Those with imperialism collaborating forces will try to get the leadership of the revolting masses by translating their developing anti-imperialist aspirations in populist “revolutionary-sounding” REFORMS and even working-class dividing forms of “localism”.

The real concrete capitalist owning class, owning the “means of production” (as well as “ownership” as “means of production” have a concrete meaning under IMPERIALIST conditions) is relatively small in quantity.
It is the class of which groups of capitalists has the collective (but 100%) ownership of a GIPC whereby each individual member is at the same time “owner” of a certain particle of the total Globalised Integrated Production-Chain (of certain given end)products being cars and computers as well as processed food-products, .....). And being as a group 100% OWNER of that GIPC, sometimes as group or as individuals out of that group even for a part “owner” of a COMPETITOR GIPC
The whole capitalist class is a part of the bourgeoisie, but not all members of the bourgeoisie are capitalists.
But by political, ideological (and first of al MATERIAL) influencing of members and whole groups of the petty-bourgeoisie and also of persons or groups that originally were coming out of the working-class, a bourgeois class-position is being developed. Those persons of groups will then act in function of the protection of the continuation of imperialism and the production-relations linked with it.
The legally (by bourgeois law) considered “owners” of the more little capitalist enterprises which are mostly furnisher or purchaser of (and so fully controlled by) a GIPC are not considered to be member of the class of capitalists (as is defined under conditions of imperialism). Because their “ownership” is in fact just formal and their enterprise is in fact owned and controlled by the capitalist owners of the respective GIPC.
This has a consequence for the concept of socialism. So were the revolution and the installing of socialism is based on the expropriation of the capitalists and integrating those “means of production” in state-enterprises under control of the socialist state, those “little capitalists” don't have to be expropriated. There position of dependency of GIPC's (which are expropriated) will become a position of dependency of the new state-enterprises....but that will be a far more better, a far more fair position for them than under imperialism. So those forces are to win for (there interests lay in) the anti-imperialist resistance.
The working class, of which parts are living in different regions of the world, living under different forms of imperialist production-relations and of levels of exploitation, is in fact one non-dividable working class having the same interests which are opposed to the interests of the capitalists. The members of the working class have to overcome all internal competition which the capitalists are trying to “create” ideologically inside the working class (racist ideologies are examples of in the working-class competition creating ideologies) .... another factor of creating competition in the working class is that some of the “achievements” that a part of the working class (mostly that part which lives in the imperialist centres) have obtained IN FACT IS PAYED by the extra exploitation of another part of the working-class (of that part of the working class living in the colonised part of the world)
The objective interests of the working class include the objective interests of the popular masses living under colonial production-relations of imperialism.
REMARK: This is sometimes easier to understand by those members of the working class living in the colonised regions than by members of the working class living in imperialist centres. So there is a role to play of political and ideological education by vanguard-workers with origins in the migration.
These interests are: resisting anti-imperialism, breaking the colonial production-relations, whereby the objective interests of the working class are going further: break down imperialism “expropriating the expropriators” and installing socialist plan-economy.

Racism is an example of a by the bourgeoisie conscious developed ideology that has to bring intern competition inside the working class en so bringing division in and weakening of the working class. The working class of the imperialist centre is so to bring to a defence of colonial production-relations and of war against all forms of anti-imperialist resistance. Working class in one “colony” has to be divided ideologically of working class in another “colony”.
....it has to be members of the working class that have to be won to be PHYSICALLY and MATERIALLY the “defenders” of the interests of the imperialists or the "defenders" of the interests of SOME imperialists who are competing with OTHER imperialists.
Racism (as is Zionism and apartheid-ideology) but also forms of “nationalism” (rather in fact to consider as “localism”) are also, by the ideologists of imperialism developed, ideologies to make accept “over all classes” the existence of colonialist production-relations and the exploitation of colonised popular masses (because they are “inferior”, “not civilised”, “not having a more civilised religion”) and making “normal” and “justified” their expropriation of their natural resources.
The objective SAME interests of the biggest parts of the “colonized” popular masses with that part of the working class that is itself part of those colonised popular masses AND the part of the working class living in the imperialist centres are:
Destroying imperialism, making the socialist revolution, installing socialist plan-economy and replacing capitalist production-relations with communist production-relations.
In the colonised regions the first stage of socialist revolution is that of anti-imperialist (anti-colonial) nationalist revolution.
The working class has to assemble all forces that can be united in an international anti-imperialist united front.
Each struggle for expropriation of capitalists, building of socialist plan-economy somewhere in the world means support for the anti-imperialist struggle in other parts in the world. The anti-imperialist struggle in a certain part of the world means a strengthening of the anti-imperialist struggle elsewhere.

The bourgeoisie is composed out of the capitalists and all those of whose OWN interests are: the continuing of capitalism (imperialism) and the continuing of capitalist production-relations. So ALL the members of the bourgeoisie are perhaps not owners of  “means of production” (of which the GIPC is the main-form today), but  ALL the members of the bourgeoisie take their advantage out of de organisation of the society BASED on private-ownership of the means of production. The bourgeoisie wants – and their activity is focused on it – to protect and further develop a society based on private ownership of means of production.
This is also the case of the nationalist bourgeoisie in the colonised regions in the world. But where the comprador bourgeoisie has interests in DEFENDING imperialism, the nationalist bourgeoisie want to replace “imperialist colonialist production-relations by “new developed national” capitalist production-relations capable to COMPETE imperialism. Because of their specific contradiction with imperialism, the nationalist bourgeoisie can at least “neutralised” of even won for the anti-imperialist resistance.

The objective interests of the majority of the popular masses in de by colonialism ruled regions AND the objective interests of the working-class are the same: tear down the imperialist (capitalist) system.
The raising of an anti-imperialist consciousness in that masses, is the task of al those who declare that they are the anti-imperialist vanguard or they are the van-guard of the working-class (which is in fact THE SAME)
By discussion IN the anti-imperialist united front, everybody (so for example the nationalist bourgeoisie) has to be convinced that there is no future “to go back to free competition” or to “untie” from imperialism and start a renewed “own” capitalist development.
The aim of the anti-imperialist struggle has (ad the end) to be: expropriation of the capitalists and putting the already social production under the organised power of the working masses that has expropriated those capitalists. Although the nationalist bourgeoisie (in the colonized regions) want to become the private owner of the expropriated assets of the imperialists, they are in fact not yet capitalists and so they have not to be expropriated. But the political and ideological discussion and the relations of power IN the anti-imperialist united front will decide if the national bourgeoisie or the working class will have the state-power in hands, that control and so “own” the in state-enterprises organised expropriated assets of the imperialists.
The GIPC's that are spun around the globe can perhaps not been expropriate in one moment or one decisive struggle...
The struggle against imperialism is in the colonised part of the world already a fact. It can be the natural resources, their digging-enterprises, their enterprises of first refining and processing that can there be expropriated.
In the imperialist centres, where the workers have obtained some serious “achievements”, the tendency exists to limit the struggle to just trying to stop further deterioration of those “achievements”. But here also imperialism has to be opposed radically. A big mass-movement of struggle has to be build that will aim to expropriate the imperialists and take the control and the “ownership” over their assets and to build a socialist plan-economy.
The anti-imperialist struggle in the colonised part of the world and that in the imperialist centres contribute both to each other and are both forming a support for each other and are both strengthening each other.

I will come back on more and more concretely strategical conclusions later...

Some other authors making analyses of actual imperialism (fond on http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/ ):
By Samir Amin:
“The Battlefields Chosen by Contemporary Imperialism: Conditions for an Effective Response from the South”: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/amin070210.html
Samir Amin led his analyses to strategically class-bound conclusions.
William I. Robinson,Global Capitalism Theory and the Emergence of Transnational Elites”:
This is an analyse out of a rather “neutral” position, not making class-bound strategically conclusions.