Following is a talk given in a panel titled “Resisting U.S. imperialism: Is it just bad policies or the system?” at the Nov. 13-14, 2010, National Conference on Socialism sponsored by the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
|
|
In 1916, the great Russian revolutionary leader, Vladmir Lenin, wrote “Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism.” Nearly 100 years later, history’s course of events has proved the accuracy of Lenin’s analysis, and it is very much relevant today.
Lenin identified imperialism as having the following five 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 this basis “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 monopoly capitalist combines which share the world among themselves; and
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Lenin recognized that imperialism was not a policy choice – in other words you can not convince capitalists not to be imperialist; you can not have capitalism without the inherent drive to maximize profits, to capture markets and resources.
Lenin recognized that war was in the nature of imperialism – that capitalist powers would go to war with one another, or with oppressed countries, to capture new colonies. And we see today that imperialist powers, led by the U.S., engage in wars to conquer or re-conquer countries for their markets and resources.
What we see today, in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America is imperialism’s inherent tendency to attempt the overthrow of independent states, whether they are socialist or nationalist. Imperialist wars each have their public relations justifications: spreading democracy and human rights, saving the world from weapons of mass destruction or overthrowing a tyrant. However, the basic motivation is still the same: the drive to capture markets and resources.
U.S. foreign policy consistently imperialist
If we look at U.S. foreign policy over the decades, it has been remarkably consistent, not interrupted by whether the Democrats or the Republicans have had control of the White House or Congress.
The U.S. currently has military bases in more than 150 countries around the world. Since WWII, the U.S. has invaded Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Panama, Grenada, Panama again, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq again. If we wanted to go through all the countries that the U.S. has intervened in, directing coups, funding counter-revolutionary militias, supporting right-wing opposition movements and other forms of intervention, the list of countries would be too long for this talk.
With the U.S. outspending the rest of the world combined on its military, there is no mistaking what the real function of the military is, and it is not defense.
Obama tries to present more acceptable U.S. image abroad
When Barak Obama was elected in 2008, there was a lot of hope for change. After eight years of the Bush administration, with two wars raging and people losing jobs and homes, a lot of people who voted for Obama were hoping for real change. And, of course, after centuries of white propertied male presidents, it was significant that an African American was elected for the first time ever.
Obama gained some “anti-war” credentials among liberals for his characterization of the Iraq war as a war of choice, as opposed to the occupation of Afghanistan, which he characterized as a war of necessity.
But we in the Party for Socialism and Liberation, along with others, knew from the start that Obama’s presidency would not bring about real change. Our analysis was not based on a deep understanding of Obama’s character; it was based on an understanding of the nature of imperialism.
Putting a new person at the helm of the imperialist state apparatus will not change the nature and the function of that apparatus, irrespective of the personal characteristics of the individual.
From the onset of his presidency, Obama tried to create the image of real change in U.S. foreign policy. But that was really a change of tone, not a change of substance. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others had created a heightened level of hatred towards U.S. imperialism around the world. Obama set out to repair the public relations damage.
Obama was going to sound kinder and gentler, extending a symbolic olive branch to the people of the Middle East, to the oppressed people of the world. We could see this clearly when Obama made a speech in Cairo a few months into his presidency, expressing respect for Islam and for Arab people. We could see this PR job this week as Obama traveled to Indonesia, India and other countries.
For the imperialist ruling class, Obama is doing a better job at propaganda, a better job at attempting to confuse people about the nature of imperialist policies.
But Obama’s policies are not in any way less imperialistic. Obama has been pursuing the same imperialist goals as every other president before him, only he is trying to give imperialism a human face.
To summarize, Obama has continued Bush’s policy in Iraq, except today the occupation of a country with 50,000 troops does not count as an occupation any more. Obama has actually escalated the war in Afghanistan, increasing the number of troops by over 40,000. Obama has increased by several fold drone bombings of Pakistan. And U.S. policy towards Palestine has remained the same. Obama’s administration is now attempting to give the credentials of a peace negotiator to the most extreme right-wing government in Israel yet.
In short, our task remains the same: struggling against imperialism, regardless of who resides in the White House. A Democrat, or any individual taking over as president, will not change the nature of the imperialist system.
Imperialism has to be overthrown, and replaced with a system not dependent on war and conquest. Capitalism, with its expand or die nature, has to end. Socialism lays the material basis for solidarity among humanity. That is why we are fighting for socialism.
