Re Alfredo's [6723] w ref. to Claus's [6711]: > I agree with Jerry about the need to tackle the pre-requisites for a theory of imperialism. In my view they include a theory of the state, of foreign trade and of ,unequal exchange, for want of a better name. Obviously historical analyses are also essential, because the actual connection between these strands of theory can be determined only empirically. This type of connection of the elements of theory makes me unconvinced by the claim that imperialism is a *necessary* stage of capitalism ; *necessary* as if ;unavoidable, in the sense that the reproduction of capital (the wage relation specifically) would collapse without it. To me, it is fairly clear that it would not. < I guess it does indeed depend on what we mean by imperialism. If it is a *contingent* 'phase' (to Lenin the "latest" phase) then it would be impossible, ipso facto, to establish a claim of *necessity*. If that is the case then the kinds of questions that Claus specified in [6711] would seem to be the order of the day. If, however, one sees imperialism as a necessary consequence of and expression of a deepening of the internationalization of capital, then a claim of necessity could be attempted (and even in that context, we could attempt to answer Claus's questions. In solidarity, Jerry > At this point in time, when US imperialism has taken an exceptionally aggressive turn, it would be important for marxists to be able to offer some insights in this regard.<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST