by Alex M.
One of the
central elements of the political programme of the CPA (ML) is the concept of
the ‘two-stage revolution’.
The obstacle
of imperialism
The key feature
of contemporary Australia is that it is dominated by US imperialism.
According to
Harvey, imperialism (and by that is meant the specific form of capitalist imperialism) has two
components which exist in a dialectical relationship.
The two
components of imperialism are on the one hand the ‘politics of the state and
empire’ which is a ‘distinctively political project on the part of actors whose
power is based in command of a territory and a capacity to mobilize its human
and natural resources towards political, economic, and military ends’.
On the other
hand there are the ‘molecular processes of capital accumulation in space and
time’ which Harvey suggests are integral to imperialism and ‘…in which command
over and use of capital takes primacy’ (Harvey, 2005: p.26).
The
‘territorial’ logic of power is the recognition that in the realm of global
politics, states may act in the interests of particular classes but
‘[p]oliticians and statesmen (sic) typically seek outcomes that sustain or
augment the power of their own state vis-à-vis other states’.
The
‘capitalist’ logic of power is not as territorially based and does not have the
same time constraints that apply in the bourgeois democracies, that is,
electoral cycles, but as Harvey points out ‘capitalist firms come and go, shift
locations, merge, or go out of business’ (Harvey, 2005: p.27).
The
capitalist accumulation process lies at the heart of this logic of power.
Thus there
are two sides to capitalist imperialism, two logics in operation which exist in
a dialectical relationship.
Sometimes it is
possible that what is driving particular global and/or domestic events is not
so much the pressures of capitalist accumulation, the ‘capitalist’ logic of
power, rather it is the ‘territorial’ logic of power that is the dominant
factor. That is, states and their actors are the driving forces behind events.
A recent
example would be the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the US and the so-called
‘Coalition of the Willing’. The invasion was not primarily driven by business
interests (though business interests did benefit – Halliburton for one) but by Bush
and his cronies who sought to enact ‘regime-change’ in Iraq and underline the
strength of US power in the region and thus globally. The US state was acting
as the imperialist thug par excellence
invading and occupying a sovereign country.
At other
times, the ‘capitalist’ logic of power is the dominant factor, with the state helping
to promote the interests of particular corporations and/or sectoral interests. One
only has to look at the TPPA for evidence of the operation of this logic.
Imperialism’s
impact on Australia
How then does
this influence the situation in Australia?
As noted
above Australia is dominated by US imperialism. The mainstream political
parties here accept the hegemonic position of the US state in international
politics.
The ANZUS
treaty binds Australia militarily with the US and closer military ties with the
latter have been a disturbing feature of the past decade. Labor and Coalition
federal governments have demonstrated an eagerness to uncritically accept US
foreign policy goals and integrate Australia into America’s ‘territorial’ logic
of power. Australia largely acts as a ‘client state’ of the sole superpower.
Regarding the
other part of the dialectical relationship that makes up imperialism, the
‘capitalist’ logic of power, we see that US based multinational corporations
(or US capital in short) dominate the commanding heights of the Australian
economy. Trade agreements act to increase the presence, depth and breadth of US
capital in Australia. American pharmaceutical corporations, for example, want
the PBS scheme eroded to help maximise their profits.
There is
scope for Australian governments and capitalist corporations to make decisions
relatively autonomously such as ‘turning back the boats’ or making overseas
investments (hello QANTAS) but the US imperialist framework remains currently inviolable.
Two stages of
the Australian revolution
Recognising
the constraints imposed on Australian political and economic development by US
imperialism, our party has proposed a two stage process in ridding Australia of
the incubus of imperialism.
The first
stage is the winning of real independence with Australian working class
interests to the fore.
The process
involves the coming together of the masses of the Australian population led by
the working class, to amongst other things, fashion an independent foreign
policy free from subservience to US geopolitical imperatives.
In tandem
with this struggle, it will be necessary to develop and implement alternative
economic policies to the neoliberal agenda which predominantly benefits US
capital and which presently blights the Australian and global capitalist
economy.
The first
stage will culminate in a truly independent Australia on the basis of which the
second stage, the building of socialism can then proceed. This is how we can
accomplish the task of building socialism in Australia.
Reference
Harvey,
David. The New Imperialism Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2005.
We the Bolshevik Cluc of Western Australia (BCWA ), have some questions for Alex M. Does the CPA ML believe that there is an intermediary stage that we must go through that is in between Capiatlism and socialism? If so, is this stage historically necessary?
ReplyDeleteAre there any examples of this social and historical "stage"?
Our Communist Forefathers that have carried out Socialist Revolutions have never mentioned this stage.
Is not the weakening of Imperialism a tactic of the Communist Movement and not an historically nescessary stage of social development?