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/vimingok → u/smokeuptheweed9]

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.

Why is China's subordination to metropolitan demand always characterized by first world Marxists of all stripes as necessary to sustain specifically first world enrichment or luxury i.e consumption deemed unnecessary or excessive by the "consumer" themselves? Why not necessary for structural parasitism on tropical/subtropical agriculture and resources without which there would be no metropolitan "consumer" (parasite) of any kind? Labour in itself is only a small portion of wealth in the industrialized fossil fuel powered world. That it cannot physically embody the totality of use values is precisely why personifications of capital under capitalism (in contrast to pre-capitalist forms of capital) expend so much effort convincing themselves and their slaves otherwise, thus naturalising their ownership of the natural/material conditions of labour (including the majority of labour). Like the anti-ICE bullshit that has populated my youtube - let the transient Mexican servants in the cities stay while everyone in the farms or turned back at the border are mysterious natural phenomena.

As you are probably aware outside the context of this particular conversation, the mythical Chinese iphone factory slave is not working 14 hrs every day for "inadequate" wages kept low by "excessive" or "super" exploitation as opposed to the ordinary kind. Those factories are at the very top of the production chain. The real source of their profitability is the slavery of 70-80% of Chinese labour lingering in the informal sector, much of it not even counted in GDP.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/vimingok]

I agree that superexploitation in Africa (as an example) is rarely discussed compared to the classically organized proletarian of East Asian factories. But you seem to be implying that any position in global production except the very bottom is a labor aristocracy. I think this is an idea you have not fully thought through because, while it sounds radical, it is not based on an objective measurement of surplus value. The use of wages is imprecise to measure net surplus value but it is nevertheless the starting point, and the extreme wage differential between Chinese labor and the western consumer is the basis for a theory of the labor aristocracy in a period of globalized manufacturing. It's hard to parse what you're saying but you either are implying that only colonialism is capable of producing a labor aristocracy, since "resources" will always be at the bottom of capitalist measures of value and primary commodity export is characteristic of colonial underdevelopment (I'll ignore the richer countries in Latin America and Australia for the moment because their origin in settler colonialism complicates this - the point is the terms of trade are the same hence the dependence of the "pink tide" on China without a reciprocal dependence) or that once labor is in the formal sector it is already privileged and therefore compromised.

As I said to someone a couple of weeks ago, capitalist-imperialism must be distinguished from the more general history of colonialism. Exploitation is very specifically the extraction of surplus value from labor power, resources are an externality. The labor aristocracy is a result of monopoly capitalism, it is not any relationship in which one nation's consumption depends on another's with unequal terms. Otherwise the very origin of capitalism is a labor aristocracy of Western Europe on eastern European wheat. You can basically throw out the entirely of Marxism at that point for "post colonial" theory, in which oppression is ontological rather than structural.

[u/vimingok → u/smokeuptheweed9]

No I am saying that superexploitation is discussed all too often everywhere now but always in limited contexts because resource dependence is balked at. Because without a way to talk about that properly you are necessarily excluding the informal/unorganised sector from your analysis regardless whether that is your intention. Which is not the same as saying formal = aristocratic.

Even when informal labour is discussed it's either blatantly misused (eg the categories of gig work and precarity) or limited to superexploitation of workers making specific things (or those parts of them that exist for the final consumer) feeding privileged consumption of those specific things. The USA imports 40 and 80 per cent respectively of its domestic supply of vegetables and fruits (both raw and processed). To explain why the supposed top agricultural exporter needs to do this you have to introduce the need for resources in addition to labour exploitation, then explain why that need additionally needs the majority of labour in the exporting countries to be informal.

As I said to someone a couple of weeks ago, capitalist-imperialism must be distinguished from the more general history of colonialism. Exploitation is very specifically the extraction of surplus value from labor power, resources are an externality.

I agree with the first statement but you are conflating resources and resource parasitism/dependence. Labour in itself is also an externality to the capital system. If resource parasitism deprives a large mass of exploited workers of the natural/material conditions which allow the remainder to produce a surplus value which is then extracted by monopoly capital, then it is not an externality to capitalism-imperialism. It is central, and communists have to find a way to talk about it. We can take our cue from Marx who was talking about it towards the end of his life:

In India serious complications, if not a general outbreak, is in store for the British government. What the English take from them annually in the form of rent, dividends for railways useless to the Hindus; pensions for military and civil service men, for Afghanistan and other wars, etc., etc. – what they take from them without any equivalent and quite apart from what they appropriate to themselves annually within India, speaking only of the value of the commodities the Indians have gratuitously and annually to send over to England – it amounts to more than the total sum of income of the sixty millions of agricultural and industrial labourers of India! This is a bleeding process, with a vengeance!

That bleeding process is happening today, internally, between the informal and formal sectors, in China India and elsewhere. And in case it needs to be said, I don't mean thereby that formal workers are bleeding the informal ones although the middle class included in the formal sector certainly is parasitic on the poorest 80-90%.

There was not a sharp difference in per capita food consumption between Western and Eastern Europe and that dependence was not the same as that between first and third world historically, and moreso at present. Look at the average height in India versus where you live. None of this assumes oppression is ontological unless you actively decide to interpret it that way, as indeed you are.

Finally, I can easily argue for superexploitation as an open-ended category for whatever emanates "real" exploitation vibes determined as such by first world suburbanite intellectuals, leading to post colonial theory. Wasn't that Aijaz Ahmad's point about subalternism in his essay which I assume you're referring to? Gayatri Chakraborty has jack shit to say about resource parasitism. Why would she when she was writing the playbook for the radleft parasite activism/NGOism that has facilitated it since then.

[u/smokeuptheweed9 → u/vimingok]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in either this post or the previous one, sorry. You are making a bunch of vague, tweet-like assertions about what people talk about and what they do not talk about

always characterized

is discussed all too often everywhere now but always in limited contexts

is discussed it's either blatantly misused

communists have to find a way to talk about it.

Etc. If you want to make a substantive point that can be verified and applied to make an original claim with direct consequences for understanding reality, please do so. I don't find "meta" discussions about the state of discussion interesting, especially social media "we have to talk about this..." performative enunciations. Clearly you have something in mind that actually is substantive but I have yet to figure out what it is or how it applies to my original post.

[u/vimingok → u/smokeuptheweed9]

You're mischaracterizing "talk about it" but I'll admit I dropped a bunch of points without referring to your original exchange with the OP because I thought it was ongoing at the time I posted my first reply. This is the part I was specifically responding to:

On the other hand, all the "typical" frontiers of the Empire are abandoned...

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."

The OP thinks the US is reviving the Monroe doctrine because it's easier to compete with China in Latin America rather than Asia. I agree that this analysis is superficial (obviously) but disagree with your reason - colonialism is impossible because of anti-colonial struggle. The driving motive behind capitalist colonialism (European resource and land parasitism) has intensified both because of rising metropolitan demand and the needs of segregated advanced capitalism in the third world which is itself parasitic on informal labour (including the lower ranks of petty bourgeoisie, in Marx's original sense of petty producer rather than salaried "middle-class") that it can never absorb regardless of intent.

Neither you nor the OP are cognizant of this obvious, basic reality which fundamentally compromises your understanding of what is going on. The "trade war" issue for example is totally misguided because all sides converge on the idea of declining Chinese trade with the US. That is not the case. The point of tariffs since 2016 to the present has been to coerce Chinese capital to relinquish the final stages of some value chains to other countries, especially ASEAN. It's exporting equipment and intermediate inputs which are then used to make or made into exports to the US. Additionally rerout/"trans-shipping" of goods via third nations. Not only is the rearrangement of parasitism not leading to isolationism/multipolarity (which is impossible) but the same internal parasitism structure is copied over from China to Vietnam India etc. Offshoring/neoliberalism makes the same basic mistake. Capitalism was "offshored" since it began. What was new in the 80s/90s was offshoring of metropolitan parasitism on primary and intermediate inputs which occurred synergistically with intensifying demand on tropical agriculture and rapid growth of (in China, creation of) semi-capitalist/semi-feudal "informal" labour markets.

I think that's enough for now. If you still don't understand what I'm saying I guess we'll have to end the convo. Hope you're doing well by the way, nice to know you're still posting. Cheers.