Re Paul C's [6576]: > 1. There are substantial empirical inaccuracies with regard to the export > of capital in the standard Leninist theory as applied to British > imperialism in the first half of the 20th century in that the UK > was not a net capital exporter. How have you measured net capital export (or 'capital invested abroad') by the UK? Of course, as we know 'capital' takes many different forms. In _Imperialism_ Lenin refers to the export of capital particularly with reference to money capital (as measured, for example, in billions of francs invested abroad from G.B., France, and Germany). What statistics have you looked at regarding capital export? If the statistics show a decline in net capital export from the UK might this simply mean that the UK has been in decline as an imperialist power in relation to other imperialist nations (e.g. the US)? If so, how would this be a problem for the theory? Indeed, isn't the decline and growth of _individual_ imperialist powers part of Lenin's theory and _emphasized_ by him when writing about the uneven development of different capitalist nations? > 3. Imperialism effectively ceased to exist as a force by about > 1970 due to the suceess of the anti-imerialist revolutionary movements, > the internal weakening of imperialism by two world wars, and the > immense military strength of the socialist camp at that period. Even if I grant you that anti-imperialist movements etc. have weakened imperialism, haven't there been other trends related to the expansion of capital which *strengthened* imperialism during the same time period? > 4. In the period since the counter revolution in the USSR, the > processes which allowed imperialism to develop are again partially > active. This expresses itself most clearly in the effective re-colonisation > of Arabia by the USA and a lesser extent the UK, the gross violation > of the post WWII international legality in the attack on the Federal > Republic of Jugoslavia, and in the recent drive by the USA to > establish military hegemony over central asia. It is also apparent > in the partial re-colonisation of Sierra Leone by the UK. Even if I grant the above, isn't it *also* the case that in the preceding period (say, post WWI period) the 'division of the world among capitalist combines' and 'the division of the world among the Great Powers' has persisted? Of course, depending on your position on the USSR, etc. which parts of the world continued to be capitalist or were something else (socialist, transitional economies, workers' states, etc.) varied. But, for *the capitalist world* haven't these divisions (and struggles among advanced capitalist nations and capitalist 'combines' that those divisions have given rise to) continued throughout? While cartelization and monopolies in the strict sense may not have grown as anticipated by Lenin, hasn't the concentration of production by oligopolies progressed in a similar manner? Hasn't the international banking industry also become more concentrated since WWI as anticipated by Lenin? Hasn't finance capital also grown throughout the period? Perhaps you are simply recognizing a point that Lenin emphasized in his pamphlet -- the unevenness of capitalism in this (and other) phase(s)? To recognize these changes that have occurred in recent decades seems to me to reaffirm Lenin's perspective on imperialism and uneven development. > 5. The level of capitalist development is much higher than a > century ago, this limits the scope of potential imperialist development. > The most significant factor here is that both China and India are > now major economic and military powers rather than colonies or > potential colonies. The scope of imperialism thus tends > to be concentrated on Africa and on relatively small and > weak countries in central asia and the middle east. There is a tremendous amount of investment by corporations from imperialist nations in China and to a lesser extent in India. While it is true that both India and China are significant military powers (but not comparable to the US in terms of military strength) they are not such major 'economic powers' when compared to the US, Japan, the European Union, etc. I also disagree with you in terms of the 'scope of imperialism': e.g. that scope has been extended in recent years in Russia and the former republics of the USSR. Imperialist nations can *also* invest in other imperialist nations, can't they? Indeed, the trade among imperialist nations may be of greater volume than the trade from advanced capitalist nations to 'oppressed nations' (but I don't have the statistics in front of me now). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST