[OPE-L:4669] Re: Re: Imperialism

From: Paul Cockshott (paul@cockshott.com)
Date: Fri Dec 08 2000 - 05:13:19 EST

Your reply to address is wrong Jerry, but
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000, you wrote:
> Re Paul C's [OPE-L:4631]:
>  > It is however a long step from such initial re-establishments of
> > protectorates to the possibility of inter-imperialist rivalries
> > re-emerging.
> When did inter-imperialist rivalries disappear?  
 with the surrender of the Japanese empire to General McArthur

>Couldn't one 
> argue that the relationship between Japanese and US capital 
> could be said to constitute an inter-imperialist rivalry? 
Not since the Japanese surrendered.
An imperialist japan would never have tolerated US troops on
her soil, or a fleet without aircraft carriers. 

>Isn't the 
> relation between the US and the European Union an 
> inter-imperialist rivalry?  
No, because the armed forces of Europe, with the partial
exception of France are under US command through nato.

Hence the US defence secretaries annoyance over proposals
for an embryonic general staff for the EU rapid reaction force.

No again, because there is no attempt to conquer parts of the
third world and divide them up into European and American
>This would seem to me to be the case 
> despite the proliferation of trans-national corporations and the 
> existence of  the U.N. , NATO, and similar international 
> organizations.

One should not toy with the notion of imperialism. 
50 to 100 million people lost their lives in the two imperialst
wars in the first half of the 20th century. The UN, NATO, and
the rivalry between the capitalist and socialist blocks meant
that imperialist wars did not occur in the 2nd half of the

The whole strategy of commintern had been based upon the
inevitablility of new imperialist wars. War was seen as the 
match that would light revolution. 
This was realistic. 

All socialist victories have come through war, and in the
vast majority of cases imperialist war was the cause (Cuba
and Vietnam being exceptions).

The end of imperialist wars was the saving of capitalism
and it  left socialists without any viable transition strategy.
> But maybe the problem here is definitional: how are you defining 
> imperialism now?
I would define imperialism either now or in the past as a process
by which an economically politically and militarilly advanced state
conquers other less developed territories with a view to economically exploiting

Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland
0141 330 3125  mobile:07946 476966

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:04 EST