From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 09:53:50 EDT
gerald_a_levy wrote: > The "export of capital" to other countries cannot be any criterion for > > "imperialism", especially since most foreign investment is made among the > > rich capitalist countries investing in each other. > > Yes, a high proportion of the investment by corporations from > imperialist nations is within other imperialist nations. This in no way > undercuts Lenin's theory of imperialism, since it was a process that he > (and Hilferding, Luxemburg, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky and others) > understood well. There is a serious point here, at present capital export among advanced countries is pretty well negatively correlated with imperialism US is main imperialist power and main capital importer. > > > > Lenin says straight out, "Cartels become one of the foundations of the > > whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into > > imperialism. Cartels come to an agreement on the terms of sale, > > dates of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. > > They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They > > fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc. > > ... > Monopoly! This is the last word in the 'latest phase of capitalist > > devlopment'" > > (Lenin, _Imperialism. The highest stage of capitalism_ in Selected Works > > Vol. 1 > Progress, Moscow 1970 pp.684, 690). > > This identification of imperialism with the tendency toward the formation > > of large monopolies and cartels seem highly unsatisfactory. > > I agree that the trend towards cartelization that Lenin highlighted has not > been a major trend in world markets for many decades. So, to the extent > that there is this "identification", then I agree that it is no longer > satisfactory. > > OTOH, one can argue that there is a long-term trend -- a consequence of > the concentration and centralization of capital -- for markets to become > increasingly dominated by *oligopolies*. Oligopolies are not (to use a > mainstream economists' expression) 'pure monopolies' (and they are not, > typically, cartel members), but they do have 'monopoly power' (i.e. market > power resembling that of monopolies). > > btw, I think that Lenin (and the others cited above) used the expression > 'monopoly' more broadly than it is used today by mainstream economists. > I.e. for Lenin, and other Marxists writing at the same time or before, there > could be more than one monopoly in a market and rivalry could exist > among monopolies in the same market. Thus, Lenin and many other > Marxists considered monopolies to be more like what was later called > oligopolies -- although the dynamic of product differentiation as a > competitive strategy was not highlighted by Lenin and others whereas > it became an essential, defining characteristic of oligopolies within the > tradition of writers on that subject. > > > Furthermore, in the meantime (since 1916), there has been a big > > move against the formation of capitalist cartels, trusts and monopolies > > overseen by the capitalist state and international organs have been set up > > for the purpose of restricting monopoly practices. > > Anti-trust policies within advanced capitalist nations are typically > directed at cartels and 'pure monopolies' (which are rare) rather than > oligopolies (which are common). > > > Imperialism implies some sort of exploitation of foreign parts. If these > > foreign parts are not directly subjugated (i.e. through the medium of > > political and ultimately military power), then the exploitation must > > amount to some kind of unfair capitalist competition. That is, the > > countries in which capitals from > > rich, developed capitalist countries are invested must be at some kind of > > structual or 'essential' disadvantage in the capitalist competition. > > To claim simply that the investment of rich capitalist countries in poor > > countries is already imperialism because a foreign workforce is exploited > > presupposes that capitalist investment is exploitative in itself, i.e. it > > presupposes the orthodox LTV and its associated TSV. > > One has to examine the transfer of surplus value internationally and > rent to more concretely make the connections and explain this process. > One also has to, relatedly, consider different national and regional > standards for SNLT including different standards for labor intensity > and the value of labour-power. This study implies -- indeed requires > -- a comprehension of the history and dynamics of class struggle in > different nations and regions. The state, foreign trade and the world > market and crises also have to be systematically comprehended. > > One has to remember that Lenin's pamphlet was a self-described "popular" > work in which he explicitly recognized -- and called for -- the need for > more research to be done (he singled out Bukharin as one of those who > needed to investigate imperialism further). So, in that sense _Imperialism_ > was not a very advanced "theoretical" work (nor did it claim to be). > Rather, it was an attempt to comprehend what was in that time the "latest" > stage of capitalism. > > Whether the "imperialism" that Lenin described is (essentially) the > "imperialism" of today (or even, as you ask, whether there is imperialism > today) are serious questions that need to be grappled with. There is indeed > a whole literature among Marxists that attempts to answer these questions, > e.g. Bill Warren's _Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism_ (Verso, 1980) and > critiques of Warren's book. > > Sorry, but I don't have time for more now. > > In solidarity, Jerry -- Paul Cockshott Dept Computing Science University of Glasgow 0141 330 3125
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 31 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT