Any society is founded on the interaction between humans and the natural world in order to transform it according to human needs. The conceptual tools developed in the Marxist tradition enable us to analyze this interaction, to engage in a conceptual mapping of the ensemble of interconnections and the laws of motion that render social phenomena intelligible and open to alteration. Materialist critique adopts a self-reflexive account of the varied interconnections, avoiding any tendency to reify the separations and contacts between different elements of the whole. In this process, the analyst or knower is also examined as part of the critique of the conflict of class ideologies. What this critique foregrounds is the totality of the dynamic contradictions animating class society, not only the major contradictions between the productive forces and social relations, etc., but also the tension between the system of needs of any social formation and the objective circumstances subtending it that underlie class conflict and its myriad sublimations. It is only within this synthesizing framework, complicated by layered mediations, that agency can acquire its measured effectivity.E. San Juan, Imperialism and Revolution (2007)
The Problematic of Postcolonialism
In a 1994 essay, the late Arif Dirlik, extraordinarily gifted historian, mentor, and friend, opened with the question: âWhen exactly⊠does the âpost-colonialâ begin?â The question was a quote from fellow cultural theorist Ella Shohat, in her probing 1992 essay on postcolonialism, a school of thought in cultural criticism which began its career in the early 1980s but which, by the time of Shohatâs essay, had already acquired its orthodox status. The phenomenal ascendancy of postcolonialism to become, in a short period of time, accepted and be part of the Establishment, even to be embraced by conservatives and the corporate community, âhas less to do,â according to Dirlik, âwith its rigorousness as a concept or with the new vistas it has opened up for critical inquiry than it does with the increased visibility of academic intellectuals of Third World origin as pacesetters in cultural criticismâ1 (Dirlik, 329). With this acknowledgment, Dirlikâs response to the original question posed, partially facetious, he admits, is: âWhen Third World intellectuals have arrived in First World academeâ (Dirlik, 329).
But the more serious side to Dirlikâs response to Shohatâs query is one that deserves more attention. Not only does it have bearing to the current work which distinctly bears the stamp of the Third World both on its authorship and its subject; it also provides the critical context with which its purpose may be understood. Near the conclusion of his essay, Dirlik comes back to the question and offers this more profound response, which is: âthe emergence of global capitalism , not in the sense of an exact coincidence in time but in the sense that the one is a condition for the otherâ (Dirlik, 352). This loose consensual reciprocity is indicated by the âabsenceâ of any meaningful criticism on the part of postcolonial intellectuals directed at global capitalism . Dirlik describes this absence as âtruly remarkable [because] this relationship, which pertains not only to cultural and epistemological but also to social and political formations, is arguably less abstract and more directâŠ.â (Dirlik, 352). âTo put it bluntly,â Dirlik concludes, âpostcoloniality is designed to avoid making sense of the current crisis and, in the process, to cover up the origins of postcolonial intellectuals in a global capitalism of which they are not so much victims as beneficiariesâ (Dirlik, 353).
The description of global capitalism offered by Dirlik in his essay exactly a quarter of a century ago remains prescient. He distinguished contemporary global capitalism from the Eurocentric capitalism whose colonialism pretty much directly âworked overâ (his phrase) the Third World during the past three centuries. Today, global capitalism serves as a concrete, rather than abstract, basis for a global structuring principle not centered on any one state wherein a private, unaccountable, profit-seeking but state-aided entityâthe transnational corporation (TNC)âsees the Third World not as an abstract theme, as postcolonial language would reduce it to, but, rather, as concrete location for âemerging markets â to be exploited but which, as Dirlik views it, as sites also of struggles and resistance, a view complemented by San Juan when he wrote: âWhenever there is imperial domination in any form, historical experience teaches us that there will always be a âThird Worldâ subject of resistance and dialectical transcendenceâ (San Juan 1995) (italics added). The appearance of TNCs as major international actors occurs at the transformation of the division of labor characterized by âincreased spatial extension as well as speed of production to an unprecedented levelâ (Dirlik, 348). âThese same technologies,â Dirlik adds, âhave endowed capital and production with novel mobility, seeking maximum advantage for capital against labor as well as freedom from social and political interferenceâŠ. For these reasons, analysts perceive in global capitalism a quantitative difference from past, similar practices â indeed, a new phase of capitalismâ (Dirlik, 348â349).
The ascendancy of global capitalism as a global structuring force has had several discernible manifestations, each one related to all others. One of these is the phenomenon of global migration of labor impelled by poverty and oppression at the country of origin and the expectation of better income at the destination. Some governments like that in the Philippines have adopted as official policy the export of warm bodies motivated by the expectation of migrant remittances to boost domestic revenue. Other places, like in Central America , have seen conflicts imposed on peasants and the urban poor to maintain centuries-old land tenure system maintained by a native aristocracy in alliance with generals armed and trained by the United States (US) in the art of counterinsurgency . These are exacerbated by neoliberal rulesâincluding punishing structural adjustment programs, privatization, and trade liberalization âoverseen by such institutions as the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and regional permutations as the Central American Free Trade AgreementâDominican Agreement (CAFTAâDR), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) all of which prohibit, through their respective charters, the enactment of protectionist national laws that might impede âfree tradeâ under the principle of harmonization which seeks to conform national laws with neoliberal global trading rules overseen and enforced by the WTO. Along with harmonization rules, trading charters also grant investor rights to corporations and diminish whatever rights are there for workers, health and safety standards for consumers, and safeguards for a sustainable environment. In many of the above cases, the work of âeconomic hit men â has preceded formal negotiations designed to ensnare leaders into accepting terms that, in the end, cede their respective countriesâ sovereign claim over their resources; failing that, jackals have taken their toll on more than one occasion.
These and similar machinations, repeated and enforced all over the world, have contributed to the common perception, perpetuated by intellectuals in First World academes, not the least of whom are political scientists, that the Westphalian state system has become obsolete. What these observers have failed to note is that while national boundaries are being rendered porous and the sovereignty of smaller states is constantly being battered down, the imperial US state has evolved to a point where it is able to maintain its autonomy from these vicissitudes; not only that, it has managed to maintain a global hegemony âin its political, military, and economic manifestationsâas though its maintenance is dependent on the dissolution of the sovereignty of all others, except that of its close allies and surrogates. Because its power is second to none at this moment in its history, it has been able to summon at will its disciplinary authority at the world stage, defining its own rules and undermining any shred of international law governing civilized behavior. It has become law unto itself. To understand how this current situation has come to be, I suggest that we discuss and bring to light the thoughts and ideas that have provided its essential foundation, commencing with the Enlightenment .
Enlightenment and Empire
In the lead chapter of my 1991 book, I wrote the following: âKnowledge about society has been among the main goals of philosophers and social scientists, especially since the advent of the Enlightenment. Modern science has its origins during this period⊠Whereas before, the method of learning was speculative and ritualistic based on the assumption that a cosmic and social order determined the nature of human destiny, the modern period is rooted in the optimistic belief that human nature is shaped by man himself. If, therefore, man goes about constructing a society according to his image of it and exploits all the resources at his command, he can control nature, regularize his behavior, and predict the outcomeâ (Bauzon 1991, 3).
The subject of the Enlightenment and its relationship to empire has, unfortunately, eluded generations of critical scholarly scrutiny for at least the following three reasons, as follows: (1) Focus on the political and social thought of Enlightenment thinkers has traditionally concentrated on their ideas on politics, society, the nature of man, and reason or rationalityârepresented by Cartesian dualism alluded to in the above quoteâbeing assumed to be uniquely endowed to man; (2) Foci on these and related subjects by various thinkers have been of a Eurocentric nature emphasizing, wittingly or unwittingly, the accomplishments and superiority of European civilization, and the deterministic conflation between mankindâs future with European progress ; and (3) contemporary commentators and interpreters who admire Enlightenment thinkers for their advocacy of individual freedom, in a political sense, often conflate it with nary a doubtful thought with free markets, or capitalism. In other words, the principles and practices of capitalism are deemed consonant with those of democracy . Consequently, the study of Enlightenment social and political theory has often allowed to slip by thoughts and ideas that rationalized colonialism , seen as a natural extension of manâs endeavor to exploit âall resources at his commandâ but which, in its essence, is undemocratic (Bauzon 1991, 3). Further, colonialism was seen as a vehicle to assert the universality of Enlightenment values through the âcivilizingâ process and the taking up of the so-called White Manâs Burden or as embodied in the French civilizing mission. Meanwhile, the expansion of liberal rights and the supposed improvement in the quality of life among Europeans within Europe proper were generally celebrated apart from and without regard to the violence and plunder being inflicted at the edges of the empire .
Typical of Enlightenment thinkers was John Locke, a liberal darling of the West whose ideas about political representation, separation of powers, and the right of citizens to rise up against a tyrannical government have found their way enshrined into Westernâincluding United Statesâconstitutions and laws. What has not gained equal attention has been his economic ideas justifying, in todayâs language, the privatization and commodification of the commons, acquisition of property through, among others, the enclosure movement; his racist predisposition toward indigenous peoples in the New World who, in his view, were lacking both in the capacity to reason and to labor; and his contributions to the flourishing of the slave-plantation complex. I make note of these in my 2016 article wherein I wrote, in reference to Chapter V of his 1690 essay, Second Treatise on Government, dealing with the subject of property: âLocke quite literally and figuratively unlocked the mystery of how to turn the commons, which he acknowledged as Godâs gift to all of humanity, into private property. He writes, in Section 26: âGod, who hath given the world to men in common hath also g...