Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LNeoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism As Neo-Imperialism
LNeoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism As Neo-Imperialism
LNeoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism As Neo-Imperialism
Imperialism
Presentation to
Institute of Marxism Research of the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
August 11, 2009
A Poem Capturing the Essence of
Neoclassical Economics, Neo-liberalism
and Imperialism
Those who take the meat from the table,
teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined,
demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill, speak to the hungry,
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss,
call ruling too difficult,
for ordinary folk.
(Bertolt Brecht)
What is Imperialism?
“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. Such a
definition would include what is most
important…”
“But very brief definitions, although
convenient, for they sum up the main points,
are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to
deduce from them some especially important
features of the phenomenon that has to be
defined.”
(V.I. Lenin, Imperialism The Highest Stage of
Capitalism”)
Defining Features of
Imperialism
“And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative
value of all definitions in general, which can never
embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its
full development, we must give a definition of
imperialism that will include the following five of its basic
features:
"Not a nut or bolt shall reach Chile under Allende. Once Allende comes to power
we shall do all within our power to condemn Chile and all Chileans to utmost
deprivation and poverty." (Edward M. Korry, U.S. Ambassador to Chile, upon
hearing of Allende"s election)
"Make the economy scream [in Chile to] prevent Allende from coming to power
or to unseat him" (Richard Nixon, orders to CIA director Richard Helms on
September 15, 1970)
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would
be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this
regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate
maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is
imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that
the USG and American hand be well hidden..." (A communiqué to the CIA base in
Chile, issued on October 16, 1970.)
Interview of Zbigniew
Brzezinski
National Security Adviser in the Carter Administration
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs
["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid
the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet
intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to
President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that
correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahedeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly
guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979
that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote
a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion
this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Brzezinski Continued
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you
yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly
increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended
to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people
didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret
anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day
that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now
have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost
10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a
conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the
Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [intégrisme], having
given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski Continued
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or
the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the
liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated:
Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Now imagine that this race has life and death consequences on
many innocents and even the fate of the planet hangs on it.
By building upon the pioneering work of liberal philanthropists (like the Ford and
Rockefeller Foundations’) – who have a long history of co-opting progressive social
movements – it appears that the NED was envisaged by US foreign policy elites to be a
more suitable way to provide strategic funding to nongovernmental organizations than
via covert CIA funding.[12] Indeed, the NED’s ‘new’ emphasis on overt funding of
geostrategically useful groups, as opposed to the covert funding, appears to have leant
an aura of respect to the NED’s work, and has enabled them, for the most part, to avoid
much critical commentary in the mainstream media.
("Democratic Imperialism": Tibet, China, and the National Endowment for Democracy by Michael Barker)
Dispersion of“Freedoms”De jure
Concentrated Power De facto
Siemens, one of the biggest industrialists
and “financial kings” in Germany, told the
Reichstag on June 7, 1900, that “the one-
pound share is the basis of British
imperialism”.[5] This merchant has a much
deeper and more “Marxist” understanding
of imperialism than a certain disreputable
writer who is held to be one of the founders
of Russian Marxism[21] and believes that
imperialism is a bad habit of a certain
nation....” (V.I. Lenin Imperialism The
Highest Stage of Capitalism)
Dejure Dispersion of Ownership
Concentration of Control De facto
It is characteristic of capitalism in general that the ownership of capital is separated from the
application of capital to production…
“The head of the concern controls the principal company (literally: the “mother company”); the
latter reigns over the subsidiary companies (“daughter companies”) which in their turn control
still other subsidiaries (“grandchild companies”), etc. In this way, it is possible with a
comparatively small capital to dominate immense spheres of production. Indeed, if holding 50
per cent of the capital is always sufficient to control a company, the head of the concern needs
only one million to control eight million in the second subsidiaries. And if this ‘interlocking’ is
extended, it is possible with one million to control sixteen million, thirty-two million, etc.”[3]
As a matter of fact, experience shows that it is sufficient to own 40 per cent of the shares of a
company in order to direct its affairs,[4] since in practice a certain number of small, scattered
shareholders find it impossible to attend general meetings, etc. The “democratization” of the
ownership of shares, from which the bourgeois sophists and opportunist so-called “Social-
Democrats” expect (or say that they expect) the “democratization of capital”, the
strengthening of the role and significance of small scale production, etc., is, in fact, one of the
ways of increasing the power of the financial oligarchy. (V.I. Lenin Imperialism the Highest
Stage of Capitalism)
Stock DispersionSmaller %s of
Total Stocks Needed for Control of
Assets
Political Pluralism (De jure) + “Vote”
Dispersion Oligarchy and Plutocracy
As a matter of fact, experience shows that it is
sufficient to own 40 per cent of the shares of a
company in order to direct its affairs,[4] since in
practice a certain number of small, scattered
shareholders find it impossible to attend
general meetings, etc. The “democratization”
of the ownership of shares, [“votes”] from
which the bourgeois sophists and opportunist
so-called “Social-Democrats” expect (or say
that they expect) the “democratization of
capital”, the strengthening of the role and
significance of small scale production, etc., is,
in fact, one of the ways of increasing the power
of the financial oligarchy. (V.I. Lenin op cit)
Multiple Political Parties and Voter
CynicismLess not More
“Democracy”
Take the U.S. 2000 Presidential Election
decided by one vote (buy the U.S. Supreme
Court 5-4) with three of the U.S. Justices
(Scalia, Thomas and O’Connor) who voted for
Bush, in violation of 28 USC 455 which
demanded their recusal from the case for clear
conflicts of interest which they refused to obey)
With 50% of age-eligible potential voters
voting, for two parties that have only nominal
differences, and with the winning candidate
getting 50% of the votes, that candidate wins
with only .50 x .50 or 25% of age-eligible
population voting for him or her. With three
parties, as with Clinton in 1992, his “mandate”
was even less.
Pillars of Neoliberalism &
Imperialism
Competitive exchange rates;
The only kind of "power" that is truly "smart", in the long-run, is that
which is non-hegemonic and does not subjectively seek the power it
objectively has. This is the "power" that comes from good example,
from non-hypocrisy, from modesty, from honesty, from being in the
real service of the people and from solid performance. When the U.S.
establishment, in both political parties, talk about "smart power", what
they really mean is not simply "smart"--and thus effective--
combinations of soft and hard power; what they really mean is more
effective forms of hegemonic power but that do not appear as nakedly
hegemonic and previously. But their focus is on power with reference
to "smart" only in terms of that which enhances their long-term ability
to apply either soft or hard power depending upon their tactical
imperatives which are about strategic hegemony. This imperial concept
of "smart" power, China has wisely denounced and rejected. The U.S.
and other nations that seek hegemonic forms of power, still have not
learned how illusory and self-negating such forms of power are.
“Soft,“Hard”and Smart Power
Obama shows his smart power
As an addendum to my previous comments above, Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton in recent U.S. Senate testimony, was
asked about "smart" power and was given a quote from some
source that said "smart power may use soft as well as hard
power, but it is anything but soft or weak." to which Hillary
Clinton noted that she had just taken or written down that
quote to use later. These folks still do not get it: all attempts in
human history at building hegemonic empires have failed;
simply, because of the rising and prohibitive costs and crises of
imperial overreach on the one hand, and the fact that
contradictions generated by and within imperial power
projections abroad, and by and within contradictions in the
home metropoles, are also dialectically tied together and feed
each other. The Government of China, and the Chinese People,
victims of imperial hegemony over many centuries, have
understood this and have wisely rejected any hegemonic
intentions or desires.
Advice from my Father
他从另一个世界走来
他像文革时期一样怀揣毛选
他要揭开美帝国主义的多重面罩
他从经济学分析资本主义的逻辑
James M. Craven
美国克拉克大学商学部主任,终身教授
Member of Blackfoot Indian Nation (印第安黑脚国)
时间: 2005 年 5 月 26 日(周四)晚 8 : 20
地点:六教 6B-301
What is your answer to the question
Socialism vs. Capitalism Who Will Win?
My answer was I do not know but I do know which must
win if this planet and humanity are to survive—
Socialism.