Destiny Of Imperialism
Iraq had been bombarded, plundered and occupied by the US & British imperialist forces. Prior to this military offensive the same butchers had massacred Afghanistan and presented the Afghan people a puppet government in the form of Hamid Karzai, a former CIA-spy. Thus the US imperialist forces (in alliance with the British) had extended its rein of control transcending the limits of the Gulf region to the Caspian Basin and made an overwhelming presence in all the important oil-producing regions of the world. In Venezuela also, the third biggest oil-exporting country to the USA, a hectic struggle for power is going on between the pro- and anti-US elites aimed to control the oil-resources.
There may be several reasons behind these war-offensive launched by the US imperialists. Prior to this war-efforts, even the bourgeois experts, 'warned' us that the impending invasions were designed to capture the oil resources, which have massive geo-political importance. It was argued, these offensives were aimed to deter the big powers of Western Europe & Japan (and even China). More reports are flooding the media till now exposing few more grand designs behind these wars, particularly the Iraq-war. Big conglomerates of TNC-s are making lucrative deals in Iraq, resources and govt-hold enterprises are being privatised at thrown-away prices; the economy of Iraq is being liberalised and/or chained to the globalised capitalist market; big arms-makers of the USA and Britain have made their fortunes; fresh impetus have been given to the Dollar-economy of the USA in the struggle for supremacy against the emerging Euro; the recession-hit economy of the USA has been energised and so on.
Keeping in view of these multi-purpose objectives of the Iraq-war?it is to be remembered by the representatives of the class-conscious proletariat that all these features are the very nature of the imperialism elaborated and theorised by Lenin on the eve of the first World War. It is the same imperialism, which operates still now albeit in different form and vigour.
The October Revolution of 1917 brought the first knell-blow to the imperialism. It was believed that the Chinese Revolution of 1949 would make the last rites. But these revolutions were defeated owing to their own weaknesses and this defeat came from 'within' the proletarian movement. And the imperialism survived. During the '50s to late '80s, the world was divided between two great powers?one led by the USA and the other by its rival the Soviet Russia. In this 'bi-polar' world, behind the shadows of the super-powers, all the sub-powers, minors & minnows bargained and fought with each other, sometimes with the hegemonies. During this era of so-called 'balance of power' (or era of 'cold-war'), numbers of wars fought locally, regionally justifying that "imperialism means war". Nevertheless, this era was full of contradictions inherent to the stage of imperialism. Within the 'anti-communist' bloc led by the USA, newer tensions, contradictions and even (non-military) conflicts occurred though in a subdued form. But, after the demise of the Soviet Russia and erstwhile East European countries in the late '80s & the beginnings of '90s, the whole complexion of the 'age of imperialism' had been changed dramatically. Old 'balance of powers' evaporated. Newer balances developed and are still developing.
The collapse of Soviet Russia gave rise to the super-hegemony status of the USA who enjoyed a leading role in anti-Soviet campaigns. Militarily it had its presence worldwide. Even its (economically) powerful allies depended upon the military might of the US forces in Europe and East Asia. In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, the then under-secretary for policy, who authorised a draft better known as 'Pentagon Paper' declared: "Our strategy [after the fall of the Soviet Union] must now refocus on precluding the emergence of any potential future global competitor." [ New York Times, March 8, 1992 ; quoted in 'The New Age of Imperialism' by JB Foster, Monthly Review, July-August 2003] Representatives of the US ruling class are now calling themselves openly (probably first time in history) as 'Imperial America'. Even before 11th September 2001, the benchmark of the 'anti-terrorist' offensive launched by the USA, a report called 'Rebuilding America's Defences' (presented as 'Project for the New American Century') drew a design: "at present the US faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." [Italics ours] These documents clearly revealed the super-hegemonic motive of the US imperialism during the last decade. But on the other hand, during this period, fresh conflicts developed within its ally forces i.e., within the NATO and elsewhere. New contradictions emerged and are still emerging within the imperialist camp. First time in history, a US resolution was opposed in the UN by the US-allies and even by a small country like Belgium. New balance of forces is developing re-aligning the countries. Imperialism cannot exist without its typical contradictions.
The contradictions are developing rapidly. This is due to happen and is happening. Iraq fought in the form of Saddam Hussein against the US Imperialism depicting contradictions between imperialism and an oppressed nation. Peoples of Bosnia, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, African countries etc. fought the imperialist forces in different ways justifying these underlying contradictions. Thousands of thousands people protested against the imperialist war. Contradictions are developing within the WTO. And also are developing between the peoples of the oppressed & exploited countries vis-?-vis the imperialism. These are developing within the rich countries in the form of sporadic outbursts of the working people. These are destined to be developed and are developing. This era is not only the 'age of imperialism', but is also the 'age of socialism'. Lenin wrote in his 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism': "...then it becomes evident that we have socialisation of production... that private economic and private property relations constitute a shell which no longer fits its content, a shell which must inevitably decay if its removal is artificially delayed, a shell which may remain in a state of decay for a fairly long period (if, at the worst, the cure of opportunist abscess is protracted), but which will inevitably be removed." [Lenin Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Vol. 22, p 303]
Hence, the 'shell' will be 'removed inevitably'. And for this removal, the rise of the proletarian movement is also 'inevitable'. This is not only 'inevitable', but is also a necessity. The imperialism has outgrown its shell. The recent history of the wars, devastation, plunder, oppression and monopolisation has revealed this necessity more and more vividly and clearly. This necessity is to be fulfilled. Representatives of the class-conscious proletariat will have to prepare themselves to perform its historic role in fulfilling this 'necessity'.
Comments:
No Comments for View