>
> Imperialism is not unique to capitalism. On this Schumpeter was quite
> correct. Imperialism has very ancient origins. But the worldwide development
> of capitalist markets and the capitalist mode of production has altered the
> character of imperialism.
> That was well put! I broadly agree with your take on this issue.
Hi Dave Z, Paul C, and Jurriaan:
I think Hobson, Hilferding, Lenin, Luxemburg, Sternberg, Bukharin,
and most other writers on imperialism would agree as well. It's quite an
uncontroversial point. What is controversial is the specific meaning of
imperialism in the late 19th century and the 20th Century and whether imperialism
is still a relevant concept for the contemporary period. For the very reason
that imperialism is also an ancient phenomena, perhaps it would have been
better to have used a different word to distinguish the form that it takes
under capitalism from the ways in which it was manifested in the ancient
world. Some authors used to used the somewhat clumsy and misleading
expression 'economic imperialism' when they attempted to make this distinction.
Of course, as Jurriaan would be quick to point out, imperialism in the
ancient world also had economic dimensions.
In solidarity, Jerry
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Thu Mar 31 10:00:50 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 02 2011 - 00:00:03 EDT