The concept of imperialism gained prominence with the
publication of Robson's "Imperialism" in 1903. Lenin's influential
work, "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism," and the
subsequent revolutionary success in Russia brought this concept and its associated
praxis to the forefront of class and international politics. Throughout the
twentieth century, imperialism haunted the bourgeoisie worldwide, manifesting
as a recurring nightmare in various forms and intensities. Over time, the
conceptions and contours of imperialism underwent changes corresponding to
shifts in societal nature, introducing new forms such as social imperialism
(socialism in words, imperialism in deeds), neo-colonialism, and more.
In the reviewed book, Rajen Harshe explores these evolving
nuances of imperialism, examining representative literature, theoretical
contributions, debates, and the policies/strategies formulated by different
countries to counter this phenomenon. Thematically, the book can be divided
into three parts. First, there is a survey of literature and major theoretical
contributions. Secondly, it contributes to the theoretical discussion on the
emerging role of middle-ranking/intermediate capitalist states playing
sub-imperialist roles in Afro-Asian and Latin American regions, and on the
Gramscian concept of hegemony. Finally, it surveys the emancipatory roles
played by the Soviet Union and the Non-Aligned nations against imperialism.
Theoretical points that have been under-represented or
not critically evaluated are also addressed. The focus on economic, political,
or cultural subjugation/exploitation of one country by another, irrespective of
its internal class divisions, ruling classes, and exploitation dynamics, is
critiqued. The Marxian scheme emphasizes the primacy of class over country,
suggesting that discussions on imperialism should prioritize class dynamics
rather than the country itself. The substitution of class with country is seen
as camouflaging class exploitation within a given society, shifting responsibility
from the bourgeoisie to other societal classes.
The argument contends that the emphasis on the country
obscures the role of the native bourgeoisie as collaborators/junior partners of
the metropolitan bourgeoisie in economic exploitation, especially in the
post-Independence periods of former colonies. The central beneficiaries of
imperialism or neo-colonialism, whether British, French, Italian, or native
elites, are shielded from scrutiny, while the working class in both imperialist
and neo-colonial settings bears the brunt of exploitation without significant
benefits. Therefore, the discussion of imperialism, colonialism, or
neo-colonialism should conceptually focus on class rather than the country.
An additional point requiring emphasis is that the ruling
elite of the neo-colonies, despite the perception of being unwilling partners
of the metropolitan bourgeoisie, are, in reality, willing collaborators. They
have consciously chosen this path to safeguard their property relations from
potential overthrow by the expropriated. Their decision to align with the
metropolitan bourgeoisie, rather than charting an independent or more
revolutionary course, is strategic and protects their interests. There is no
logical reason for them to share markets, natural resources, or surplus value
with the metropolitan elite unless it serves their purpose. The extreme and
critical social conditions in neo-colonial societies make the ruling elite
vulnerable to any spark of revolt that could unite disparate groups against
them, potentially altering existing property relations to their disadvantage.
This predicament compels them to willingly partner with the metropolitan
bourgeoisie, contrary to the perception of unwilling collaboration.
Caution is necessary when discussing the roles of the
Soviet Union and the Non-Aligned nations in anti-imperialist struggles. The
ruling classes of Non-Aligned nations structurally resemble those who had
previously fought for independence alongside their people. Despite changes over
time, their economic and political interests, particularly in securing a
greater share of the market, remain consistent. The ruling classes of
Non-Aligned nations collectively joined forces to pressure the metropolitan
bourgeoisie for enhanced market access. Their symbolic support for independent
anti-imperialist struggles served as a tactical maneuver to strengthen their
bargaining position against the metropolitan bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, the
masses, as usual, became mere cannon-fodder in their pursuit of economic gains.
The case of the Soviet Union is no different, leveraging the anti-imperialist
movement to secure greater market shares from individual nations within the
Non-Aligned blocs and using the collective bargaining power of the Non-Aligned
nations against the West for a share in the global market. This two-pronged
strategy, coupled with the protected market of East Europe, allowed the Soviet
apparatus to sustain itself for a couple of decades, projecting a socially
progressive image. Both the ruling elite of the Soviet Union and the
Non-Aligned nations pursued their economic and political agendas without
genuine concern for the masses. The reviewed book indirectly touches on these
themes but primarily centers around the concept of the country.
The most notable aspect of the book lies in its
theoretical formulations, particularly in its exploration of the Gramscian
concept of hegemony and its analysis of sub-imperialist states in Afro-Asian
and Latin American countries. Regarding the latter, the author contends that
"the capitalist form of development, to varying degrees, was embraced by
diverse Third World states after the Second World War." While these states
partially underwent industrialization, they failed to fully realize the potential
of capitalist development, often exhibiting a combination of capitalist and
pre-capitalist social formations. Termed as intermediate capitalist states,
examples include South Africa, Brazil, India, among others. The characteristics
of these states include being relatively new and autonomous centers of capital
accumulation with intricate ties to international capital, serving as regional
bullies propped up by imperialist states to further their interests, and having
independent agendas, particularly within their respective regions. The analysis
delves into the class formation of the ruling elites in these states and their
roles on national, regional, and international levels.
In the section on "Gramscian Hegemony and
Legitimation of Imperialism," the author concentrates on comprehending the
functioning of the imperialist order, its superstructure, inter- and
intra-state relations, rules facilitating world order expansion, and the
legitimation of imperialist values. The discussion involves the cooptation of
elites in peripheral countries and the absorption of counter-hegemonic ideas.
Applying Gramscian concepts, the author seeks to counter and establish
counter-hegemony, unraveling the seemingly normal and obvious imperialist
values and ideas that provide stability to international capital. Harsh's
utilization of the Gramscian approach enhances our understanding of the
imperialist superstructure.
No comments:
Post a Comment