[lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Empires and is the U.S. one

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 02:01:04 -0700 (PDT)

I thought that Marx made some such argument ?

O.K.
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:31 AM, palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
 
to my knowledge nobody made the point that "nations" are subject to historical 
necessities to become communists or not.
is there an example available?



On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

Wikipedia says Carr was a “quasi-Marxist.”   Marx preached an historical 
determinism which may be where Carr got his, but a lot of the “the 
US-is-an-Empire” talk came from that rather than from a showing that the US is 
like Rome or the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch or British Empires.   It has become 
for the modern Marxist/Leftist a pejorative term rather than a quest to 
determine what it is precisely that comprises an Empire and whether the U.S. 
fits.  
> 
>Since Marx we’ve had Francis Fukuyama building on Kojeve arguing that Hegel 
>was right after all (and Marx was wrong).  The end of history is Capitalism, 
>or to use its modern expression, Liberal Democracy, and not Communism.  The 
>Leninistic “Imperialism is the highest form of Capitalism” argument therefore 
>becomes otiose.
> 
>Niall Ferguson, no Marxist, thinks the U.S. is an Empire but hasn’t produced a 
>definition or an argument to substantiate that idea as far as I know.  There 
>is a sense in which the U.S. performs like the “World’s policeman” on 
>occasion.  And there was the handing off of the “world’s policeman’s baton” 
>from Churchill to Eisenhower and the U.S. becoming committed in South East 
>Asia somewhat as a result, but unfortunately not to attempt to rescue France’s 
>chestnuts but to attempt to keep a domino from falling (in the then believed 
>theory about the best way to battle Communism).  
> 
>Wilson, representing a majority view (IMO) supported the “four freedoms” at 
>the end of WWI and did not approve of the French, British, and Italians desire 
>to split up the after-WWI-pie but was outsmarted by them.  The U.S. as the 
>last-man-standing in regard to military and economic power after WWII enforced 
>its prejudice against empires.  The breakup of the British, Dutch and French 
>empires after WWII was to some extent due to this U.S. prejudice.  So I end up 
>shaking my head at Ferguson’s arguments and setting his books aside (although 
>I did complete a few).  
> 
>Someone in regard to India pointed out that Britain made an inconsistent 
>empire in that it promoted the idea of “freedom.”  Sooner or later a colony, 
>as in the case of the 13 & India is going to see that inconsistency and revolt 
>in order to become like Britain, free.  Colonies, at the very least, seem to 
>be one of the things an Empire needs to have in order to be called an Empire – 
>at least so it seems to me.
> 
>Does the U.S. have troops in Japan and Germany in order to exercise Imperial 
>demands?    That would be a bit hard to demonstrate because following in 
>Britain’s footsteps it advocates freedom and could not get away with 
>exercising a force that would counter that.  China and others in Asia feared a 
>resurgence of Japanese militarism; so the U.S. is saying, “look, we shall keep 
>troops there.  We shall make sure that doesn’t happen.”   The same situation 
>exists in Europe.  Some still fear a German militaristic resurgence; so the 
>U.S. is there to assure other European nations that it will not permit that to 
>happen.   
> 
>If someone wants to argue that the U.S. is currently performing the role of 
>“World’s policeman” I would not argue with that.  Pat Buchanan and others have 
>argued that we can’t afford to keep doing that, and here we may be entering H. 
>P. Huntington’s realm.  It should be the “core nation” from each 
>“civilization” that does that and not just one nation for the whole world.
> 
>In short there are some interesting things being written about world power and 
>the future.  Earlier Marxist-based ideas have for the most part been set aside 
>in view of ideas more closely reflecting the modern world. Who today would 
>argue that there is a historical-necessity at work that will force the world’s 
>nations to become Communistic?  And if someone did, who would pay attention to 
>him?
> 
>Lawrence 
> 
>From:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
>Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
>Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 11:35 AM
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Comparing Empires
> 
>An aside to Lawrence, since he was mentioning Lenin's Imperialism as the 
>Highest Stage of Capitalism: I have read it and I consider it an excellent 
>essay, does that make me a Marxist ? I don't see myself as one. I do believe 
>that Lenin was a very intelligent and educated man, whatever his moral and 
>political faults were. (The same could not be said about Stalin.)
> 
>O.K.
>On , Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>________________________________
>


-- 

palma,  e TheKwini, KZN













palma

cell phone is 0762362391





*only
when in Europe*:  
inst.
J. Nicod
29
rue d'Ulm
f-75005
paris france

Other related posts: