Es la segunda vez que COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA difunde un escrito de James Petras, profesor de +tica Política en la Universidad de Binghamton. Nueva York. Su título es, «El socialismo en la época del imperialismo». En esta ocasión, nuestro prólogo a ese escrito es un prólogo de autocrítica y de crítica.
De la misma forma que no se puede sacar una frase o un párrafo del contexto del escrito al que pertenece, y juzgarle aisladamente respecto al mismo, tampoco se puede coger un escrito aislándole de la obra completa de su autor por muy correcto que en apariencias parezca dicho escrito. Este es el error que cometimos con el escrito de J. Petras titulado «Las relaciones USA-Latino América; quién obtiene qué, dónde y cómo», y cuya traducción al castellano, que nos fue facilitada por el propio Petras, difundimos ampliamente el pasado 14 de abril. Además ya conocíamos la obra de Petras y la habíamos criticado hace tiempo.
En este escrito que hoy difundimos de Petras, el autor describe una parte de los movimientos que hoy se enfrentan con las consecuencias de la pol¡tica capitalista del imperialismo en sus pa¡ses, y se plantea si es posible la transformaci¢n socialista de esas sociedades en la ‘poca actual.
De entrada llama la atenci¢n el hecho de que Petras insista en que las oltimas revoluciones socialistas contra el imperialismo y sus lacayos locales (China, Viet Nam, Corea del Norte, Cuba etc…) se iniciaron a pesar de la Uni¢n Sovi’tica, cosa que hasta cierto punto es cierta. En cambio no resalta el empuje mundial que aon ten¡a la ola de la revoluci¢n proletaria de Octubre en Rusia, sin la cual hubieran sido impensables dichas revoluciones. Tambi’n resulta sospechoso que, en un amplio an lisis global de un largo per¡odo hist¢rico como el del siglo pasado, James Petras no aborde al menos las causas fundamentales del hundimiento de la Uni¢n Sovi’tica, ni las consecuencias profundas que tuvo en la divisi¢n y descomposici¢n del movimiento comunista y del movimiento obrero internacional.
James Petras en la segunda parte de su escrito nos presenta un esbozo de programa socialista que en definitiva es una amalgama de las utop¡as socialistas peque_o burguesas del siglo XIX y de los programas revisionistas, social-dem¢cratas y populistas del siglo XX. Nada nuevo en esa visi¢n id¡lica de una democracia igualitaria y de un «estado de todo el pueblo», que nadie sabe de d¢nde ni c¢mo sale.
James Petras conoce muy bien y domina el marxismo. Por eso mismo no podemos concederle el beneficio del despiste. Petras sabe muy bien y desde hace mucho tiempo, cuando aprendi¢ el «abc» del marxismo, que el nocleo central de la teor¡a pol¡tica revolucionaria que elabor¢ Marx con Engels es la dictadura del proletariado. El mismo Marx lo se_al¢ en diversas ocasiones de forma inequ¡voca. Lenin sol¡a decir que la onica cuesti¢n de principio que hay en el marxismo es la dictadura del proletariado.
No dudamos que a algunos, en estos momentos, les pueda parecer doctrinario y sectario, e incluso de «mal tono» que, al abordar el escrito de Petras, «El socialismo en la ‘poca del imperialismo», saquemos a relucir la dictadura del proletariado. Lo hacemos porque, como marxistas, tenemos presente en primer lugar las ense_anzas de la historia de este siglo pasado en el terreno de la lucha de clases, y sobre todo la situaci¢n de miles de millones de proletarios y de otras masas trabajadoras oprimidas y explotadas de la ciudad y el campo cuyas condiciones de vida, de trabajo, o sin trabajo son absolutamente infrahumanas. Han quedado a merced de la m xima y m s salvaje explotaci¢n o marginaci¢n por parte del capitalismo en su etapa imperialista y de dominio mundial. Nadie a estas alturas puede negar que ese proceso, en el que el proletariado queda desarmado y prisionero del capitalismo, se inicia a partir del momento en que en la Uni¢n Sovi’tica – por una serie de errores explicables por las circunstancias hist¢ricas en las que tuvo lugar la Revoluci¢n de Octubre, por las traiciones y porque no hab¡a ninguna experiencia hist¢rica v lida que sirviera de referencia para el proletariado revolucionario frente a las tareas ingentes y complejas a las que se enfrentaba y a las nuevas formas que revest¡a la lucha de clases – una conspiraci¢n silenciosa de elementos contrarrevolucionarios, dentro del Partido y de los aparatos del estado, pone f¡n a la dictadura del proletariado, sin proclamarlo, substituy’ndola por «el estado de todo el pueblo». La teor¡a y la pr ctica revolucionaria del marxismo quedaron desactivadas desde ese momento al eliminar su nocleo central. A partir de ah¡ la Uni¢n Sovi’tica se transfroma en un coloso con los pies de barro. Su hundimiento y su vuelta al sistema capitalista no era m s que cuesti¢n de tiempo.
Octubre de 1917 supuso una gran experiencia hist¢rica y un gran triunfo de la revoluci¢n proletaria cuyo impacto iba a cambiar la faz de la tierra en las d’cadas siguientes y permiti¢ salvar a la humanidad del monstruo nazi-fascista gracias fundamentalmente a la combatividad, audacia y al sacrificio del Partido, del Ej’rcito Rojo y del Pueblo Sovi’tico que dejaron 22 millones de m rtires en esta gesta hist¢rica.
¨C¢mo es posible hablar de «revoluci¢n socialista en la ‘poca imperialista» sin tener en cuenta, ni estas experiencias hist¢ricas, ni la teor¡a revolucionaria marxista que impuls¢ y dirigi¢ la m s grandiosa lucha de clase del proletariado que hasta ahora se ha conocido?
Hay una cuesti¢n que es fundamental se_alar: sin la participaci¢n decisiva y dirigente del proletariado revolucionario el combate contra el capitalismo y el imperialismo no tiene ninguna posibilidad de victoria en un momento en que este ha implantado su hegemon¡a en todo el mundo y no vacila en emplear las armas m s mort¡feras para imponer sus leyes criminales, mientras los imperialistas forcejean entre ellos por el reparto de las riquezas y de los mercados.
Por otra parte hay que tener muy presente tambi’n que el proletariado ha sido, es y seguir siendo, mientras exista el capitalismo, la onica clase, absolutamente la onica clase que para liberarse a s¡ misma tiene que liberar a todos los dem s explotados y oprimidos. Es decir, el proletariado es la onica clase que, en la historia de la humanidad, se plantea acabar con la explotaci¢n, con la opresi¢n, con la descriminaci¢n, la marginaci¢n y con las guerras… en definitiva, el programa del proletariado revolucionario se propone acabar con las clases e implantar la sociedad comunista. Y dentro de este programa del proletariado revolucionario hay un punto esencial que los proyectos democr tico-dulzones de participaci¢n igualitaria, como el de James Petras, suelen olvidar con harta frecuencia: se trata no solo de acabar con la sociedad dividida en ricos y pobres, en dominados y dominantes etc…etc… sino de poner fin de una vez por todas a la divis¢n hist¢rica que ha permitido que una parte de la humanidad tuviera que hacer el trabajo manual de esclavos, de explotados, mientras la otra parte se dedicaba a las actividades intelectuales que permit¡an a los explotadores aumentar sus beneficios y fortalecer sus cuotas de poder.
El proletariado est levant ndose de nuevo despu’s de su gran y reciente derrota hist¢rica. Sus luchas, aunque todav¡a dispersas y fragmentadas, son de una gran combatividad revolucionaria y anuncian ya las grande olas revolucionarias que sin dudar se avecinan.
Pero que nadie se haga ilusiones: ser practicamente imposible que la fuerza de choque decisiva del proletariado pueda ser utilizada en beneficio de programas burgueses o peque_o burgueses camuflados de socialismo o de utop¡as de para¡sos democr ticos para todos y por todos. Las grandes experiencias hist¢ricas han ense_ado al proletariado que en las derrotas de la revoluci¢n hay un gran perdedor que es el que sufre las peores consecuencias. Ese perdedor es el mismo proletariado junto con los dem s oprimidos y explotados. La miseria, el hambre, la esclavitud, y lo peor de todo lo peor, es para ellos. En general, y de esto tenemos muchas experiencias, los intelectuales progresistas «mu_idores de ilusiones democr ticas», casi siempre vuelven a disfrutar de un buen puesto entre los de su clase o incluso, como vimos en la c’lebre transici¢n «democr tica» espa_ola, utilizan el trampopl¡n de su traici¢n al proletariado para saltar a los mejores puestos de direcci¢n de la econom¡a, la pol¡tica, la cultura, etc. del r’gimen burgu’s. El proletariado internacional ha aprendido ya de muchas lecciones hist¢ricas para permitir que nadie le arrebate la pr¢xima vez la victoria, ni vengan a mellar el arma afilada de su teor¡a revolucionaria, el marxismo.
No ser con proyectos pseudo-marxistas con los que la humanidad se librar del imperialismo, etapa final del capitalismo.
Jam s en la larga historia de la lucha de clases entre el proletariado y la burgues¡a tuvo tanta validez como en estos momentos la teor¡a revolucionaria del marxismo. Pero como muy bien dice A. B. Razlatski, autor del II Manifiesto Comunista: «Marxista es solo el que puede mirar la vida con los ojos del proletariado».
COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA
Concluding Chapter of Imperialism Today
By
James Petras
Henry Veltmeyer
Socialism in the Age of Imperialism
James Petras
Introduction
In the not so distant past, millions of people the world over seeking to escape the tyranny and exploitation of imperialism, sought the answer in the construction of a socialist society. Today, proposing the socialist alternative raises more questions than answers. These questions can be grouped into several subdivisions: the most general questions counterpose new adverse «world-historic» political, economic and cultural conditions to the emergence of revolutionary movements and struggles; a second set of questions, while accepting the negative structural features of an imperialist dominated world, questions whether at the micro-level, a socialist subjectivity can develop; a third set of questions whether a successful socialist revolution can develop a viable strategy in the midst of a sea of imperial adversaries or simply enmeshed in the capitalist marketplace. These are important questions that must be addressed by those who pose a socialist alternative to the reigning imperial power, because they require precise answers. To simply envision a «utopian» alternative, or to evoke a socialist dream will not take us very far and is unlikely to convince anyone except those who are already among the initiated. More importantly individually conceived utopias are usually concocted by intellectuals divorced from the popular struggle, and their ideas are as disconnected from the experiences and needs of the popular classes as their everyday life. Before embarking on a discussion of the historical possibility of a socialist transformation it is useful to specify the most challenging questions raised by skeptics and adversaries of the socialist alternative. The first set of questions emphasize the new structural constraints. Is socialism possible in the age of imperialism? Can the power of giant global corporations be challenged within countries or by countries? Can the power of the Euro-American owned mass media and the sway of its propaganda message over the urban and rural poor be countermanded by alternative forms of communication with a working class perspective? Can a new revolutionary subjectivity be created? What are the historical lessons of previous periods of imperial expansion in relation to revolution? A second set of questions deals with the problems of subjectivity, the absence of a socialist or revolutionary referent. The questions relevant to this questioning of revolutionary possibilities include the following. Recent decades have demonstrated that the increase of mass poverty and inequalities have not led to revolution. Could it be that individual mobility and intra-lower class relations of reciprocity have created alternative forms of behavior and organization compatible with imperialism? Can socialism be reconstructed on the basis of novel, national (or international) experiences in the face of the collapse of the USSR and the conversion of the Chinese elite to capitalism? Is the state an anachronism transcended by global actors committed to the imperial system? The third set of questions does not deny the existence of opposition to imperialism or many of its negative manifestations but question whether revolutionaries and socialists have a consequential alternative strategy. They ask: is there a coherent socialist strategy that can reverse the now entrenched imperial socio-economic, political power configurations? Are the neo-liberal counter-reforms reversible without trauma and crises? Are socialist institutions viable in a sea of capitalist relations? Are socialist values compatible with operating in world or even local markets? Can a socialist society organize its national security and economic planning without falling under bureaucratic rule? These are important academic and political questions that raise fundamental issues facing any proponent of a socialist alternative to contemporary imperialism. Yet there are answers, some more tentative than others, but all arguing that, despite all the scepticism, doubt and criticisms there is a solid basis for struggling for socialism, as an objective and subjective possibility.
Objective Conditions for Socialism< One of the strongest objections to socialism is based on the high degree of integration of economic processes; the greater development of the social division of labor. Today, we are told, more people form more economic sectors, covering a multiplicity of countries cooperate in producing and distributing every sort of commodity. Put another way, it is argued, globalization - or in our terms, imperialism - has broken down the national and sectoral constraints in the circulation of commodities and capital, thus creating one interdependent market and productive unit. In one sense this is partially true, in another patently false. The deepening of socialized production, in which many economic units located in a multiplicity of settings cooperate to produce on a world scale is a prominent fact in the contemporary world. But it is false to present this as a cooperative form of production based on greater degree of interdependence. Because this cooperation in producing commodities is presided over by a distinct segment of individual private owners and directors who make the strategic investment decisions and appropriate the profits. The private owners and controllers of socialized production are not interdependent on their workers and employees - they set the conditions of work, the levels of remuneration and allocate income to themselves in a highly unequal fashion. The power, ownership, prestige and income factor are allocated in a highly asymmetrical manner based on hierarchical exploitative relations - not interdependency.
Imperialism has set in motion two distinct and opposing processes: a high degree of social cooperation among producers as a mode of increasing efficiency; and a greater concentration of private appropriation of the wealth that is produced. This contradiction or growing polarity between cooperation for production and private appropriation of the collectively produced commodities is fundamental in developing a socialist transformation. By any measure, the increased efficiency, greater technological innovation and growing productivity is found in the greater development of the social division of labor or cooperative production. The private owners and directors main function is the appropriation of this wealth. The growing concentration of wealth – the emergence of a billionaire class of super-rich – is based on the greater number of workers subsumed under this system of social production: socialism is thus objectively situated within collective production and the struggle is based on extending social production to social ownership and direction. The idea of cooperative productive is thus an integral part of global production but it is mediated, defended, rationalized by the dominant capitalist class which appropriates its wealth. The capitalist secret of wealth accumulation is not in the genius of individual entrepreneurs but in the vast army of workers, researchers and employees who produce and distribute the commodities and services. Collective labor can exist and prosper without any single entrepreneur including William Gates but the billionaire capitalist cannot accumulate wealth without cooperative labor. The uncovering of the social nature of contemporary wealth generation however while providing a solid point of departure for collective ownership will not in itself lead to socialism unless there is a deep and far-reaching understanding, organization and struggle by the direct producers to resolve this contradiction. Thus the argument that the new wave of imperial expansion has ruled out socialist transformation because of the extension of market relations is turned on its head: the very process of incorporating more workers in more countries into the social division of labor creates an objective basis for social action for social ownership.
The second objective basis for arguing for socialism is the increasingly centralized nature of political decision making. Today more than at any time in the past a small group of non-elected political officials have greater voice and power over a vast number of people around the globe. Officials of the Central Banks and Economic and Financial ministries of the Euro-American empire, their appointees in the so-called international financial institutions (IFI) like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Asian Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, make the macro and micro socio-economic policies that adversely affect billions of people. These non-elected elite economic policymakers respond directly to the interests of their multi-national and banking billionaires. In effect these elite decision makers pre-empt the political powers ostensibly held by the elected officials of the non-hegemonic states. In other words the world’s electorate votes for electoral officials who are subordinated to non-elected economic elites serving imperial institutions and interests. The popular electorate is in effect disenfranchised: strategic decisions are taken by centralized centers by non-elected officials ruling by decrees without popular representation, deliberation or consultation. Thus while more and more people are increasingly subject to the rule of a centralized elite, they have less and less control over their economic and social conditions. The divorce between electoral politics and elite dominance, between sustained and commutative benefits for the elite of empire and declining incomes and social conditions for the many, establishes the objective basis for extra-parliamentary struggles and opens enormous opportunities for revolutionary forces to challenge the oligarchical claims that capitalism and democracy are co-terminus. Objectively the vast centralization of oligarchical power provide a basis for demonstrating that democracy can only be recovered under socialism.
If the contradictions of contemporary imperialist structures provide a solid objective basis for developing a socialist alternative, past historical experience provides us with another.
Imperialist Expansion and Socialist Revolution in Historical Perspective Imperialism is the result of the inner workings of capitalism combined with external opportunities, in part themselves artifacts of imperial policymakers. In the past as in the present, the expansion and conquest of overseas markets and sources of state revenues has unmade and refashioned class relations and state configurations to maximize imperial economic interests and strategic politico-military positions. The very process of imperial induced capitalist development has frequently led to massive displacement of peasants, highly exploitative labor relations, everyday racial and ethnic indignities and abysmal class inequalities. The imperial political overlords who direct the system are only accountable to their own ruling classes thus provoking conflicts with a range of classes and groups, from pre-imperial elites to modern intellectuals and wage laborers. These imperial induced conflicts have led to innumerable revolts and in some instances to successful socialist revolutions, particularly in periods of inter-imperial wars, where local ruling classes and governing elites have been weakened and discredited. The theoretical point is clear, large-scale long-term imperial systems have not inhibited revolutionary struggles nor prevented socialist revolutions.
Socialist revolutions are products of imperial wars by workers and plebeians within the imperial countries as well as colonized or quasi-colonized people.
The famous Paris Commune was an outgrowth of the Franco-German War of 1870-71, between early and late imperial countries. The German military victory and the conquest of most of France set in motion a powerful popular uprising in Paris and the subsequent commune. While the Paris Commune lasted only a few months, its organization, legislation and even its mistakes served as a practical model for revolutionary theorizing by both Marx and Lenin. The first inter-imperialist World War (1914-18) with its millions of deaths, population displacement, hunger and destruction set in motion massive popular uprisings , protests and revolutions. The War, the pursuit of imperial conquest by military means, destroyed the conventional bonds between bourgeois leaders and plebeian followers, and undermined the control of landlords over submissive peasants. Socialist revolutions took place in Hungary, Bavaria, Finland and Russia. Soldiers and workers revolted in Berlin and in the Baltic fleet. The mighty European imperial system, which dominated five continents, was sustained by massive armed force and overflowing treasuries, as an impregnable bastion of capitalist power, produced massive worker and peasant uprisings and a successful socialist revolution in Russia.
In the inter-war period there was a resurgence of imperialism particularly the newly emerging imperial countries of Germany and Japan, which challenged the established European countries and the U.S. in their regions of hegemony. The ensuing conflicts and conquests, unleashed a new powerful wave of popular anti-imperialist movements among the war ravaged and hyper-exploited countries, particularly among the millions of displaced peasants in China, Indo-China and Korea. Imperial expansion and war intensified the pillage of the land, mines and productive units, creating a vast army of revolutionary resistence, leading to socialist revolutions under the leadership of the indigenous Communist Parties in China, Indo-China and North Korea. What began as anti-imperialist wars were converted into civil wars in which the socialist forces eventually triumphed. In Europe a similar process occurred in Yugoslavia. In other countries the anti-colonial struggle, bifurcated between regimes which consolidated a neo-colonial relationship and others which sought to create mixed national-populist non-aligned states. Two points need to be emphasized. In the first place it was precisely the virulent, new imperialism whose powerful military machines and totalitarian state structures which set off the popular revolts which undermined imperial domination. Secondly, the old European and new U.S. imperial powers were not able to restore imperial hegemony in several important countries (China, and in half of Korea and Indo-china). The theoretical point is that this second wave of imperialism despite its greater firepower and manpower, the scope and depth of economic reach could not prevent socialist revolutions from successfully transforming society. It is important to note in this regard that revolutions succeeded despite and not because of any aid from the existing collectivist society in the USSR. The sea of capitalist relations did not prevent social revolutions.
The post-World War II period witnessed the emergence of U.S. imperialism on a world scale, with a worldwide network of military bases and alliances, the biggest military budget with the most advanced military technology and heavily capitalized giant enterprises prepared for and engaged in a world wide expansion to conquer overseas markets (the emergence of the so-called multi-national corporations). While the new U.S. empire was able to repress and defeat a number of popular revolutionary uprisings throughout the world, it was defeated in two major conflicts (China and Cuba) held to a draw in a third (Korea) and temporarily defeated in several others (Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique, Chile, Grenada, Dominican Republic). The successful revolutions occurred precisely in the countries where the U.S. imperial presence was most dominant: Indo-China with 500,000 U.S. troops, and tens of billions in-state investments in military infrastructure. Cuba was the country with the greatest concentration of U.S. ownership and a major naval base (Guantanamo). The U.S. provided more military aid and advisors during the Chinese civil war than any other country during the mid to late 1940s. Likewise the U.S. committed hundreds of thousands of troops, and billions in aid to conquer the Korean peninsulas and had to settle for a compromise dividing the country. The theoretical point is the deepening military and economic presence of the U.S. empire was a conditioning factor precipitating a successful socialist revolution, not merely a powerful inhibitory factor. Regarding the relation between socialist revolution and the absence or presence of the Soviet bloc it should be noted that all the revolutions in the post-World War II period occurred despite the opposition of the Kremlin: Yugoslavia, China, Cuba and Indo-china. While the Soviets provided important support once the revolutions were consummated, the fall of the USSR did not lead to the collapse of the revolution in Cuba, even as it forced Cuba to adjust its policies toward foreign capital and to seek new trading partners. The initiation and success of all 20th century socialist revolution had little to do with the presence of the Soviet bloc and more to do with the development of the class and anti-imperialist struggle in the country and its international solidarity. This suggests that the absence of the USSR today (the sea of capitalism) is not a new historical impediment but rather a constant factor throughout the 20th century.
The re-emergence of mass popular struggles under socialist or at a minimum anti-neoliberal/anti-imperialist leadership throughout the world at the start of the new Millenium should put to rest the notion that the triumph of Euro-American imperialism is irreversible and unquestioned. In Latin America the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the rural Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, the brief taking of power by an alliance of indians, peasants and junior officers in Ecuador are the high points in the resurgence of the mass anti-imperialist Left. In Asia similar mass popular movements based on industrial workers’ unions (South Korea), and mass urban and peasant movements have emerged in Indonesia, Philippines, Nepal to name a few.
The theoretical point is that the sweeping generalizations of an absolute, universal triumph of capitalism/imperialism in the wake of the demise of the USSR trumpeted by its defenders and echoed by demoralized sectors of the Left intelligentsia has no empirical basis. This triumphalist ideological posture can only be sustained because of the mediocrity of its advocates and, on the Left, by the desire to find a critical niche in the empire.
If indeed Euro-American imperialism was as triumphant and consolidated as its celebrants and the demoralized ex-Leftists claim, there would be no need for the empire to resort constantly to violent, counter-revolutionary policies and to enlarge and deepen their military interventionary capacity. If the revolution has ended, or as one Leftist writer claims the empire has scored a decisive historical victory, why the need to constantly arm NATO, engage in offensive wars in the Balkans, the Gulf, the Horn of Africa? Why is NATO recruiting new clients, members and increasing military budgets and new weapons systems? Why is the U.S. increasing its military aid five fold in Colombia and multiplying the number of military bases and FBI offices in more than 30 countries? Certainly none of these offensive military moves are not directed against an attack by any state. The most plausible argument is grounded in the rather fragile socio-political equilibrium that exists between pro and anti-imperialist forces throughout the world: a still powerful empire and an emerging anti-imperialist movement with a distinct and growing anti-capitalist current.
Subjectivity Between Objective Conditions and Popular Revolutions
There is a very significant gap between the objective opportunities and rational logic of socialist revolution and the level of revolutionary consciousness among the exploited and marginalized classes. The general development and deepening of revolutionary consciousness can occur as much after a revolutionary upheaval as before. In the final analysis revolutionary subjectivity is not a mere reflection of the rapacious economic exploitation of expanding empires. It is the essential link that comprehends objective conditions and transmits that understanding into a political program and revolutionary action. Objective conditions are a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating revolutionary social classes. Imperial expansion displaces or subordinates petty producers, converts peasants into landless workers, increases the number of wage workers, expels wage workers and converts them into informal self-employed urban poor, bankrupts the small and medium sized bourgeoisies. The ideological political response of these adversely affected groups is not predetermined by the imperial source of their plight. The determinant of their socio-political response is found in the availability, organizational capabilities and leadership of the competing ideological groups which appeal to the discontented mass. In present circumstances there are several organized forms and political expressions of this discontent. The most conservative response to imperial expansion finds its expression in the ethnic surrogates of the Euro-American powers, which promote imperial appropriations and exploitation from above and ethnic expropriation of other ethnic groups from below (i.e. via ‘ethnic wars of liberation’ that legitimate thievery of property and public assassinations). A second response is a kind of «clerical nationalism» in which former traditional elites challenge imperial domination to restore the power and prerogatives of some of the religious and in some cases commercial, landowning elites. In the absence of secular, Leftist groups, then religious anti-imperialists, offer alternatives to Western decadent morality rather than a sustained challenge to Euro-American economic power. Not infrequently a division of political-cultural-economic power transpires in which, the religious authority controls cultural and political institutions, while pro-free marketers control the economy. A third response to imperial domination emerges among sectors of the petit bourgeois which is adversely affected by free trade, that undermines local manufacturers, debt payments that reduce credit and raise interest rates and speculative investors who generate economic volatility and provoke bankruptcy. This group of progressive professionals, NGO leaders and others are interested in power sharing with the imperial powers. They struggle for a place at the table in the IMF, World Bank and WTO meetings. They argue for some regulation of capital flows, greater access to Western markets and against Wes
