Re Alfredo's [6709]: > My apologies for the misunderstanding. What I meant to say was that the foundation of a theory of imperialism *must* be an economic theory of this process - not that it should be a purely economic theory. < OK, thanks for the clarification. Let us discuss how, a bit more concretely, the "foundation" of a theory of imperialism would be built. I think that we (but not necessarily everyone on the list) would agree that the foundation is developed at its most abstract level from a comprehension of the value and capital forms. (this presumes that imperialism is a *necessary* consequence of the accumulation of capital rather than merely a conjuncture and historical contingency.) The building of that foundation requires: a) a critique of the existing literature (bourgeois, heterodox, Marxian -- not necessarily in that order) on trade and imperialism. b) a review of the empirical data and literature (here I am thinking more of the historical experience of imperialism rather than merely statistical datum); c) [putting aside for now the question of what Mike L calls the "one-sidedness" of the presentation of wage-labour in _Capital_], the systematic development of the state-form. This is a necessary state in the development of the theory in that its comprehension is presumed -- and serves the basis for -- an understanding of foreign trade and world markets. Yet, this task also presumes a critique of existing literature on the state and a grasp of the empirical concrete re the state. [Reuten-Williams (1989) attempt to do c) (and indeed include a literature review as part of Parts 4-5), but the basis for *their* foundation for a Marxian theory of the state is laid in the starting point of self-production (and then sociation, dissociation, and association). This is, of course, a highly controversial part of their work. I think, though, that a Marxian theory of the state could be developed even without agreement on that as the most abstract starting point of the theory. Otherwise, we would fall into a kind of infinite regression trap!] a-c are, of course, no simple tasks. Yet, if there is agreement that they are important (on both theoretical and political grounds) perhaps we could collectively try to think through them together. That would presume a rather long-lasting and far-encompassing thread though! In solidarity, Jerry Reference: Geert Reuten and Michael Williams _Value-Form and the State: The tendencies of accumulation and the determination of economic policy in capitalist society_, NY, Routledge, 1989
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST