The poverty of anti-imperialism (at least the current use the term) Libya's rebellion is forcing us to position ourselves, and therefore, some masks begin to fall to really reveal what are the ideological positions of each other. And not worth hesitations, and silences equidistant positions. Libyan forces or may not be.
I called attention deeply as is using the term anti-imperialism as the only pro-Gaddafi defense positions, or at least acquiescent with Qaddafi and not clearly in favor of the rebellion Libya. Found that in the middle and bottom of the current discussion is what we mean by anti-imperialism, it may then ask what that is anti-imperialism and ask what is the current use of the term.
Going to the origin of the idea from a Marxist point of view, it is necessary to quote Lenin.
"(...) But definitions too short, but are comfortable, then summarize the main, are nevertheless inadequate, since it is necessary to deduce from them especially very essential features of the phenomenon that defined. Therefore, without forgetting the conditional and relative significance of all definitions in general, which can never cover all aspects of the relations of the phenomenon in its full development, it should give a definition of imperialism containing the five following key features, namely: 1) the concentration of production and capital has to such a high degree of development that has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life, 2) the fusion of capital the banking industry and the establishment, on the basis of this "finance capital" of the financial oligarchy, 3) the export of capital, unlike the export of commodities acquires particular importance, 4) the formation of international monopoly capitalists, which share the world, and 5) the territorial division of the world among the capitalist powers important. Imperialism is capitalism at the stage of development which has taken the dominance of monopolies and finance capital, has acquired an importance which the export of capital, has begun the distribution of the world by the international trusts has over the distribution of the whole of it among the biggest capitalist countries. (...)" [1]
understand that we can all recognize the quote from Lenin the current situation. Globalization and the global development of capitalism has brought terms like dictatorship markets and the rising power of supranational organizations capitalist and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), rating agencies, multinationals, and so on. In all these supranational organizations legitimized by the citizens recognize the points of 1 to 4 of Lenin's quote, which we summarize in the control of national policies through financial pressures and market. It is worth pausing to analyze the number 5, the territorial division of the world among the biggest capitalist powers. Distinguish two different conceptions of territorial control by the capitalist powers.
-
The concept of British imperialism. Imperialism Britain from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries was based on military control of territory. Through military action controlled the public, political and commercial center of the occupied territories for the benefit of the metropolis.
-
The conception of American imperialism. U.S. imperialism is more subtle but now, with the financial crisis is more visible. It is the commercial control of the territories with the continued threat of force. This is commercial control in several ways or a combination of them, namely, through pressure of supranational bodies like the IMF or the WTO, the establishment of multinational in the territory, political control of dictatorships or democracies, through corruption, coups. Behind the commercial control is ever present threat of use of force, weapons capacity, by the major capitalist powers. It is noteworthy that the most common form used by the U.S. imperialism to control a territory it has lost control of the coup is using military forces inside the country concerned, where Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009.
Although I have used two specific countries to define the different concepts that I find in the control territories, this does not exclude that the U.S. sometimes use how British imperialism cases of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq among others.
return to Libya. Under the prism imperialism / anti-imperialism that derives from this analysis and other analysis beyond the social and economic situation in Libya, there are two findings:
-
In Libya there is a popular uprising, not a coup use military status.
-
Libya and was a territory controlled by imperialism, multinational oil companies already were on Libyan territory and the IMF applauded the Libyan economic policies [2].
We conclude therefore that we are really facing a rebellion against the Libyan regime and its derived pro-imperialist, pro-capitalist for reasons largely beyond the actual global Libyan context. It is an Arab revolt against the dominant imperialism in the region, including the territory of Libya. Yet European and Latin American left that position to take questions, because the meaning of anti-imperialism has been kidnapped to be defined only anti-American positions, and the U.S. has positioned against Gaddafi. This conception of anti-imperialism, this conception that leads to more analysis to be placed in front of the policy of the U.S., is that qualified them as miserable and poor.
In the recent words of Fidel Castro, I conclude that somehow recognizes that the rebellion in Libya has not been caused by U.S. imperialism, but imperialism obviously try to capitalize on the current situation.
"(...) NATO imperialism and seriously concerned about the revolutionary wave that began in the Arab world, where it generates much of the oil that sustains fuel economy of developed and rich countries could not fail to take advantage of the internal conflict in Libya to promote military intervention. (...) " [3]
Still, it is a clear example of anti-imperialism design simply as a position contrary to the policy adopted by the U.S., where the anti-imperialist, in my opinion, should be the support and sustenance to those who fight against pro-imperialist regime, pro-capitalist for many social advances in theory have made in the country and have many uncertainties about the final outcome of this struggle or character of rebellion.
Moreover, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez promotes international mediation, promoted in other words a graceful exit Gaddafi, a no-trade, a halt to the rebellion. If we understand the revolution as a process of change, even if we understand communism as "the" real movement "in the words of Marx himself, and disputes that exceed the current state of affairs" [4] propose a non-movement , a no-trade, is equivalent to making a counter proposal. And if there any doubt Chavez alignment with Qaddafi, Gaddafi himself in these last hours are requesting the entry of a delegation UN in the area [5], contrary to the findings of the rebels who do not want any foreign intervention in Libya.
If we do a bit of memory, the statement of the socialist character of the Cuban revolution is dated April 16, 1961, just over two years after the triumph of the revolution and four years after the start of it . Can anyone imagine any sector of the left then propose that four-year international mediation to the Cuban conflict?
The current concept of anti-imperialism leads us to focus our analysis on the danger of NATO intervention in Libya, thus avoiding (purposely or not) any analysis of the nature of the rebellion Libya in particular and the Arab Revolt in general. We are so obsessed with the U.S. we have not analyzed the role of counter that is putting China on the subject. Chinese bureaucratic imperialism, if I may say so.
However, in contrast to the conservative attitude and equidistant from the American and European socialist leaders (eg the Communist Party of Spain [6]), we find support for the Libyan revolt of the Socialist Party Algerian workers [7] Tunisian Left Party Renewal [8] and the Communist Party of Egypt [9] to name a few. Also, the United Secretariat of the Fourth International is positioned next to the Libyan rebels [10].
term use of anti-imperialism today, as opposition to the U.S., leads to the conclusion that NATO should not come as Gaddafi to overthrow a dictator or a controlled democracy. But a deeper analysis should lead to the conclusion that the entry of NATO is dangerous because it would disarm the armed people who have risen against the tyrant. And the difference is not trivial, since while in the first case we leads to position with Gadhafi, the second case we are positioning ourselves with those who have taken up arms. What is the revolution but the armed people that stands against the powers that be?
Today, the imperialist cause is miserable in its third sense "extreme poverty" [11], as simple and lack of reasoning, but it is wretched in its fourth sense, " pest pedicle, usually produced by the high sufferer's uncleanliness " [11], because it spreads like a plague of lice that suck blood and undermining any rationale, Marxist socialism and the realities we face.
avoided, as that prevents us from adopting anti-imperialism anti-capitalist position.
-
[1] VI Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism , Foreign Languages \u200b\u200bPress, Beijing 1975, pages 113 to 114
