Paul C wrote [#4671], replying to me > The argument that it is impossible per so would seem unsustainable given the > history of the 20th century, so putting this through does seem to depend on > > (a) identifying some contingent feature of the modern world economy that > inhibits conflict > I think there is a feature that is not contingent but systematic at work, which is the spread of the capitalist mode of production and the political superstructues associated with this. This is an important point which I think socialist theorists will have to work on; is it indeed the case that imperialism is essentially a phenomenon of relations between capitalist and pre-capitalist entities (a position for which I think Luxemburg's "Accumulation of capital" could be taken as a text)? There are no longer large areas with pre-capitalist state structures. With a faint self-suspicion of nit-picking, how about Saudi Arabia? These are the easiest for the most advanced powers to conquer. Now as German imperialism showed in the early 40's the fact that a country already has a capitalist state and basically capitalist mode of production does not prevent it being a victim of imperialist aggression, but such aggression is much more risky. I agree with the substantive point, but unless I've missed something, doesn't this amount to saying that (a) imperialism is not just about relations between capitalist and pre-capitalist entities, and hence *is* systemically possible (b) however, the outbreak of "inter-capitalist imperialism" is subject to greater constraints, hence less likely in a (nearly) all-capitalist world. It seems to me that whether the latter point is systemic or contingent depends on the focus of analysis -- given the foregoing, it would be contingent from the point of view of imperialism as whole but systemic from the point of view of capitalism (because of capitalism's inherent universalising tendency). Could you really see India or China becoming once more targets for land grabs by any of the OECD countries? Absolutely not (and what a great advance for humanity that this is so). But just as I would see a conception of imperialism as being only about the domination of pre-capitalist formations by capitalist ones as being a rather old-fashioned one, so also would I regard a conception of imperialism that was restricted to annexation and the like. In fact, I would say that such an outlook was not simply old-fashioned, but in fact wrong even in the epoch in which it had some apparent force: to take a case from one of Paul's first posts on this, the late-19th century imperialists never attempted to annex China: rather, they attempted to carve out spheres of interest with special privileges. I think the question about a putative 21st-century imperialism is whether bodies like the WTO, etc., can in fact bring about the state of affairs which Paul anticipated -- i.e. a single world capitalist order -- or whether the future is one of semi-autarkic blocs (the EU, NAFTA, ASEAN (as the creature of Japanese -- or Chinese? -- imperial influence)) competing for influence along their margins. Readers of George Orwell will note, of course, that the foregoing correspond to Eurasia, Oceania and Eastasia; would anyone on this list who follows UK politics care to volunteer an explanation of why some British Conservatives continue to aspire to Airstrip One status, rather than taking the -- on the face of it, more rational -- Eurasia option? Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST