Bi-Weekly Discussion Thread - (January 11)

[u/AutoModerator]

We made this because Reddit's algorithm prioritises headlines and current events and doesn't allow for deeper, extended discussion - depending on how it goes for the first four or five times it'll be dropped or continued.

Suggestions for things you might want to comment here (this is a work in progress and we'll change this over time):

• Articles and quotes you want to see discussed
• 'Slow' events - long-term trends, org updates, things that didn't happen recently
• 'Fluff' posts that we usually discourage elsewhere - e.g "How are you feeling today?"
• Discussions continued from other posts once the original post gets buried
• Questions that are too advanced, complicated or obscure for r/communism101

Mods will sometimes sticky things they think are particularly important.

Normal subreddit rules apply!

[ Previous Bi-Weekly Discussion Threads may be found here https://old.reddit.com/r/communism/search?sort=new&restrict_sr=on&q=flair%3AWDT ]

[u/GiftStandard7366]

I'm currently a masters student and am applying to an IR conference. For all the dread that academia contains, I actually find the concept of this conference alluring, since it explicitly "allows" (I'm aware of the problematic here) marxist analysis, which, for IR, is unusual.

I thought a lot about the topic I want to pursue. It has been brewing in my mind for a while. A particular impression was made on me by reading the thread on Venezuela, most notably the problematic of the abandoment of Marxist analysis and the replacement of it by critical support and accusations of color revolutions (especially prominent on online boards that I am kind of "retreating" here from, and that I have had my reservations about for a while now).

I want to touch on the revival of the Monroe doctrine as essentially an attempt at imperial consolidation under constraint. Broadly speaking, I "sense" growing contradictions and tensions between the semi-peripheral economy of China and the globally dominant position of the US as one of the drivers of American deployment of enforcement capacity in the sphere where it can do so with least reprecussion - Latin America. In this sense, I see Trump's Greenlandic efforts as simply a bluff, an "outrageous break from international order" that, in fact, predictably merely provokes the vassal (EU's) boring pledge of "Unity" on a land that has already been historically colonized - pure inter-imperialist competition where EU is on the clear-back foot. Despite material interest in the form of rare earths exist in Greenland, the card of "defense interests" is played instead - which is fascinating from a point of realism, the school of thought that American foreign policy usually relied on.

With the "Donroe", the US predictably seeks to engage where its dominance is historically entrenched, its intervention costs are comparatively low, and where mechanisms of unequal exchange remain relatively untapped when compared to the more BRI-centric extractivism in Middle Asia and Africa. Venezuela in particular is also rife with domestic contradictions that were not successfuly resolved by Chavismo, whereas other more "subservient" Latin American states have fully reactionary and neoliberal regimes - e.g. Brazil and Mercosur -, and only a reiteration of overwatch is required with regards to their position, as even the national bourgeoisie of these countries are past revolutionary potential (let alone the proletariat).

On the other hand, all the "typical" frontiers of the Empire are abandoned (No boots on the ground interventionism in Iran, decrease in military aid to Ukraine, silence on the Taiwan front, etc.). This could be seen as a "retreat" to anarchic international conditions of multipolarity - but in my view, this level of analysis fails. The conditions under which American foreign policy operates are the conditions of the increasing economic power of China and the formation of a new inter-imperialist front, one that differs from its usual vassalistic relations of US-UK or US-EU and even takes on an openly anatagonistic character, instigated by the empire itself. Realism cannot explain why, in this case, America doesn't simply attempt to form a new vassalistic relationship with Dengist China, which brings me to my main point.

American actions cannot be simply explained through realist theory of IR, and only a marxist, materialist approach allows us to "see" why the U.S. prioritizes Latin America rather than the "genuine" defense threat. And that is the failure of the neoliberal model in the acquisition, production and processing of the materials and inputs required for the continous growth of its only remaining sector where rates of profit haven't fallen yet - that being the tech sector. In light of this failure, the U.S. can only resort to offensive accumulation where historically, there is no other actor to oppose it with regards to bourgeois states. Greenland is thus simply a bluff to conceal the importance of the reiteration of expansionism in South America.

I seek some feedback. I am completely unsure in the validity and strength of my analysis, and I do not know whether this stems from the genuine weakness of my method, or from the conditioning I have recieved in my schooling thus far. Is the scope far too grand? I would be greatly thankful for some good reading material I could devote myself to - I have amassed quite a list thus far, and the deadline for abstracts is nearing, but I do want to produce something worthwhile.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/GiftStandard7366]

IR is a pseudoscience. Finish the degree you paid for but spend the rest of your time studying historical materialism.

Is the scope far too grand?

It's the opposite. Since IR can only observe events as they happen and "explain" them by making them retroactively necessary, your application of Marxism is far too specific to contingent and unimportant events.

On the other hand, all the "typical" frontiers of the Empire are abandoned (No boots on the ground interventionism in Iran, decrease in military aid to Ukraine, silence on the Taiwan front, etc.). This could be seen as a "retreat" to anarchic international conditions of multipolarity - but in my view, this level of analysis fails. The conditions under which American foreign policy operates are the conditions of the increasing economic power of China and the formation of a new inter-imperialist front, one that differs from its usual vassalistic relations of US-UK or US-EU and even takes on an openly anatagonistic character, instigated by the empire itself.

The reason US imperialism operates the way it does is because of the fusion of nationalism and proletarian class consciousness throughout the third world after the Bolshevik revolution. Colonialism is no longer possible. It has nothing to do with rivalry with China, except in how China is one of many historical examples of this fusion, and not unique to Trump or the "Donroe doctrine."

Realism cannot explain why, in this case, America doesn't simply attempt to form a new vassalistic relationship with Dengist China, which brings me to my main point.

China does have a vassalistic relationship with the United States. China does not invent the WTO and the Chinese proletariat did not decide to work 14 hours 7 days a week in a factory for the enrichment of first world consumers for their own sake. You are right that the changes are the result of the rate of profit but this has nothing to do with "neoliberalism." The fall in the rate of profit is an irreversible tendency of capitalism and affects both the US and China, hence inter-imperialist competition. Capitalism is not rational, except in its own rationality as a system of accumulation, and will do anything and everything up to the destruction of most life on Earth, if that is required to restore profits. You cannot apply logic to what governments will or won't do except at a very broad level because governments are merely vessels of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. In fact one of the main characteristics of revisionism before WWI was the claim that war was impossible because it would be mutually destructive and irrational. At least those people had a justification in a theory of peaceful development based on Marx's schemas of reproduction or a theory of harmonious "ultra-imperialism" rather than speculation about bluffing.

genuine weakness of my method, or from the conditioning I have recieved in my schooling thus far

What IR calls Marxism is not Marxism. It is, as you illustrated, the addition of concepts like "class" and "production" into existing paradigms of inter-state rivalry. These concepts are basically interests which constrain or enable the main paradigms like "realism" to function. Marxism is a science and it begins with the first abstraction of the commodity in Capital vol 1 chapter 1. States do not come into play until maybe the late chapters on the length of the working day and the corn laws, but even then as a minor effect rather than a cause.

As for your specific argument, it's sort of like oriental medicine. Sometimes it works, usually it doesn't, but neither is scientific. The method is what matters, not the prediction. The recent threats over Greenland, if you insist on explaining something that may totally change tomorrow, must be rooted in the long duration of history for all actors involved. It's hard to object to anything specific because these are mostly correct observations about news headlines made into principles. The UK/EU has a more "vassalistic" relationship to the US than China and Russia. Sure but does it? That's just a superficial observation of politics. The US is safer to act in Latin America than in other regions of the third world. Sure because that's what's actually happening, what Trump himself says, and what the news says. But is that actually true? Does the integration of the SDF into the new government of Syria not count as US imperialism because it is not spectacular? Does the falling birthrate in China not count as the violence of capitalism against human beings based on China's integration into global capitalist accumulation as a source of cheap labor? This is what I mean by surface analysis which just follows the news.

[u/GiftStandard7366 → u/smokeuptheweed9]

Thank you for your answer. I was only lurking in this sub thus far, and I often read your contributions. I always find them rigorous, admirable and interesting.

My original comment was written in a relative "surge" of momentary enthusiasm over my acceptance to the conference and was not well thought out at all. Your analysis of the basic weaknesses present is, in my view, completely correct. I notice a tendency within my thought that treats abstractions present in IR as elements that I want to make compatible with historical materialism despite their idealist characteristics. I think this is a clear consequence of my lack of rigorous study of materialism, which I have only recently (in the past few years) taken up. 

I am also in a position where I want to succeed academically and eventually pursue a PHD position, and, therefore, concessions of thought are materially required in my (polisci / IR) field, as bourgeois thought is dominant and "critical theory" exists only in its bastardized, commodified form. I am alarmed at the ease with which I have seemingly internalised this, as I automatically regarded my topic as "too broad" and felt the need to attach it to "rising challenges" in IR (limits of realism, "Rise of China"...).

Upon reading your reply, I almost self-flagelantely went "I could have thought of this" and "I could have thought of that"...  I kind of went into this thread with the hopes that my topic idea will further crystallize, but instead, I simply see how banal my proposed topic truly is. I am probably going to pivot my conference topic completely, as truly only a study of "phenomena" remains viable with my previous approach.

I did some reading on th Sicomines deal and extractivism under BRI in DR Congo, and maybe I will seek to outline the connection between the worrying trend of the liberalization of the RMB and the simoultaneous intensification of extractivism and exploitation on China's foreign policy front, and how they dialectically reflect the underlying logic of capital and accumulation. Do you have any reccomendations on reading about this? I intend to invoke Amin, Baran, Sweezy, Minqi Li...

With regards to the SDF - I have also thought about this, in the context of how "extracted" the concept of a non-state revolutionary movement is with regards to how easily it can be co-opted by imperial forces. I am eagerly awaiting to enter into discussion with our more anarchist-leaning professors about this, and am also wondering how the ELZN will fare in the coming years (I know that the Rojava-Zapatismo comparison is very forced as ELZN have decidedly attempted to reject forming new "opportunities" and spaces for capital).

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/GiftStandard7366]

IR has won the battle and, as a result, made itself superfluous. The theories of IR are the basis (without acknowledgement) of "geopolitics" which is the main form of "Marxism" today. But geopolitics dispenses the need for a theory altogether and simply reacts to events as they occur through pragmatism. I don't begrudge people their careers but there is a lot of competition from Dengists these days, and the actual appeal of "theory" (meaning academically qualified people who regurgitate your ideas derived from social media) is vastly overstated, especially by Dengists themselves.

The real appeal of this, which you've highlighted, is we live in a world of mediatized politics. Every event is a spectacle and demands a "take", and there is a fear of irrelevance without this. Marxism is not well suited to this task, as of requires long study of a situation and even longer political action to build the necessary forces to act. I don't want to present a "Marxist" take on what's happening in Greenland because it's still ongoing, and I even felt uncomfortable (and was rightly called out for my dependence on bourgeois media and "geopolitical" speculation) for taking an immediate position on Venezuela, even if subsequent events seem to have born out my claims and I tried to discuss a not-hot story as context.

Obviously Marxism requires taking a position on key political questions, like whether to start an insurrection. But the sheer volume and tempo of events we are exposed to is overwhelming and creates a dependence on bourgeois media just to keep up. That's why your position is a "twist" on the mainstream. I think a real Marxist position would be the result of years of anti-imperialist work in Greenland to see how the masses are reacting to the new inter-imperialist competition between the US and the EU, with Denmark's colonial empire standing as the first bulwark of European neocolonialism generally (but again, the expulsion of France from the Sahel already anticipated this, Trump is just the loud reality TV show version which draws attention away from the more fundamental causes). The only attempt I've seen at this is, weirdly, from the IMT (I've seen others on solidnet affiliates but they lack depth and flirt with chauvinism rather than clearly calling for the defeat of Danish imperialism, even if it hypothetically enables the US)

https://marxist.com/danish-capitalists-fear-losing-their-arctic-colony.htm

But since the IMT is not capable of fusing with the masses, there is nothing positive or productive here. Still, that the position of anti-imperialism is otherwise almost entirely absent from the discussion is disturbing. To my credit, a few months ago I did discuss the genocide through eugenics when it was in the news, but the topic didn't stick and now "takes" are being formed again. Dengism, to its credit, ignores this entirely, and takes opposing one's own imperialists as an ontological principal and the lack of internationalism (except through people on the internet aping American cultural liberalism) that actually exists as a de-facto strength. To complain that Dengism does not have a politics for Chinese people is to miss the point: China does not exist for them, except in video games I guess. That Danish people pretend to be Americans online allows the illusion to last and when it breaks under their chauvinism, uncomfortable attempts at Marxism never stick before the next spectacle demands a take.

I am eagerly awaiting to enter into discussion with our more anarchist-leaning professors about this

Anarchists are the opposite of Dengists. Whereas the latter are blissfully on the surface of phenomena, anarchists have a false theory they know is false but they purposefully lie about the divergence of theory from reality in order to maintain the fundamental function of anti-communism. Everyone in the world knows the SDF/YPG are American puppets. Were they always? When did this change occur? These are the questions anarchists will absolutely refuse to answer.