From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri May 30 2003 - 09:22:16 EDT
Michael E wrote on Wednesday, May 28: > This and Allin's comment show that the concept and phenomenon of > imperialism are by no means clear. Allin's post in this thread concerned the meaning of empire and imperial powers rather than imperialism and imperialist powers. > Capitalist colonialism more or less dissolved after WW II. What was the cause of the dissolution of colonialism? Weren't the de-colonial (national liberation) struggles within the colonies a major --even decisive -- cause of that dissolution? >To call what comes > after, neo-colonialism seems to be a paucity of concept. A better instance, I think, of paucity of concept is to claim that calling 'what comes after' neo-colonialism is a paucity of concept _without explaining why_. At least Nkrumah and others who used the term "neo-colonialism" _explained why_ they were using that expression. > The "export of capital" to other countries cannot be any criterion for > "imperialism", especially since most foreign investment is made among the > rich capitalist countries investing in each other. Yes, a high proportion of the investment by corporations from imperialist nations is within other imperialist nations. This in no way undercuts Lenin's theory of imperialism, since it was a process that he (and Hilferding, Luxemburg, Bukharin, Preobrazhensky and others) understood well. > Lenin says straight out, "Cartels become one of the foundations of the > whole of economic life. Capitalism has been transformed into > imperialism. Cartels come to an agreement on the terms of sale, > dates of payment, etc. They divide the markets among themselves. > They fix the quantity of goods to be produced. They > fix prices. They divide the profits among the various enterprises, etc. > ... > Monopoly! This is the last word in the 'latest phase of capitalist > devlopment'" > (Lenin, _Imperialism. The highest stage of capitalism_ in Selected Works > Vol. 1 > Progress, Moscow 1970 pp.684, 690). > This identification of imperialism with the tendency toward the formation > of large monopolies and cartels seem highly unsatisfactory. I agree that the trend towards cartelization that Lenin highlighted has not been a major trend in world markets for many decades. So, to the extent that there is this "identification", then I agree that it is no longer satisfactory. OTOH, one can argue that there is a long-term trend -- a consequence of the concentration and centralization of capital -- for markets to become increasingly dominated by *oligopolies*. Oligopolies are not (to use a mainstream economists' expression) 'pure monopolies' (and they are not, typically, cartel members), but they do have 'monopoly power' (i.e. market power resembling that of monopolies). btw, I think that Lenin (and the others cited above) used the expression 'monopoly' more broadly than it is used today by mainstream economists. I.e. for Lenin, and other Marxists writing at the same time or before, there could be more than one monopoly in a market and rivalry could exist among monopolies in the same market. Thus, Lenin and many other Marxists considered monopolies to be more like what was later called oligopolies -- although the dynamic of product differentiation as a competitive strategy was not highlighted by Lenin and others whereas it became an essential, defining characteristic of oligopolies within the tradition of writers on that subject. > Furthermore, in the meantime (since 1916), there has been a big > move against the formation of capitalist cartels, trusts and monopolies > overseen by the capitalist state and international organs have been set up > for the purpose of restricting monopoly practices. Anti-trust policies within advanced capitalist nations are typically directed at cartels and 'pure monopolies' (which are rare) rather than oligopolies (which are common). > Imperialism implies some sort of exploitation of foreign parts. If these > foreign parts are not directly subjugated (i.e. through the medium of > political and ultimately military power), then the exploitation must > amount to some kind of unfair capitalist competition. That is, the > countries in which capitals from > rich, developed capitalist countries are invested must be at some kind of > structual or 'essential' disadvantage in the capitalist competition. > To claim simply that the investment of rich capitalist countries in poor > countries is already imperialism because a foreign workforce is exploited > presupposes that capitalist investment is exploitative in itself, i.e. it > presupposes the orthodox LTV and its associated TSV. One has to examine the transfer of surplus value internationally and rent to more concretely make the connections and explain this process. One also has to, relatedly, consider different national and regional standards for SNLT including different standards for labor intensity and the value of labour-power. This study implies -- indeed requires -- a comprehension of the history and dynamics of class struggle in different nations and regions. The state, foreign trade and the world market and crises also have to be systematically comprehended. One has to remember that Lenin's pamphlet was a self-described "popular" work in which he explicitly recognized -- and called for -- the need for more research to be done (he singled out Bukharin as one of those who needed to investigate imperialism further). So, in that sense _Imperialism_ was not a very advanced "theoretical" work (nor did it claim to be). Rather, it was an attempt to comprehend what was in that time the "latest" stage of capitalism. Whether the "imperialism" that Lenin described is (essentially) the "imperialism" of today (or even, as you ask, whether there is imperialism today) are serious questions that need to be grappled with. There is indeed a whole literature among Marxists that attempts to answer these questions, e.g. Bill Warren's _Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism_ (Verso, 1980) and critiques of Warren's book. Sorry, but I don't have time for more now. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT