From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 07:08:36 EDT
Re Allin's message sent Wednesday, May 28: > Note that Paul [C, JL] uses the relatively straightforward term, > "imperial power", not the more slippery "imperialist power". > To be an imperial power, you need an empire: foreign countries over > which you exercise direct political domination, which requires > military power as precondition or back-up. Being home-base to banks > with a wide international influence is not having an empire. Hi Allin. Above you are identifying empire, and imperial power, with "direct political domination" -- hence colonialism. Perhaps we just differ on how general the meaning of "empire" is, but I think that we need to consider the particular form that empire tends towards under capitalism. The perseverence of the economic relations between former colonial powers and former colonies, or what some (beginning with Kwame Nkrumah, I believe) call "Neo-Colonialism" shows, imo, that Empires no longer require direct political domination. Moreover, one could argue that this form of control of one nation over other nations mirrors the typical form of control required by capital of labor. That is, force and direct control is no as longer systematically required since relations of production and distribution are enforced by market mechanisms. In that sense, the fear of being "beggared" (a term that Rakesh recently used re "beggar-thy-neighbor" ) becomes a form of control of sovereign nations (through institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF) just as the fear of joining the IRA becomes the primary form of control by capital of labor. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT