[OPE-L:6574] Re: Re: * poll: who has advanced political econ omy since Marx? * (fwd)

From: glevy@pop-b.pratt.edu
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 10:50:22 EST

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Cockshott <paul@cockshott.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:35:14 +0000
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:6560] Re: * poll: who has advanced political econ omy since Marx? *

On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, you wrote:

> Another interesting question is whether imperialism as it was characterized
by Lenin in his pamphlet has been altered in significant ways. E.g. Paul C, I
believe, once raised this question in relation to what he viewed as the
contemporary (in)significance of the export of capital from the imperialist
nations. This would make for an interesting thread -- 'how has imperialism
changed since Lenin's time?' or 'has imperialism changed since Lenin?'. > >
In solidarity, Jerry My view is that 1. There are substantial empirical
inaccuracies with regard to the export of capital in the standard Leninist
theory as applied to British imperialism in the first half of the 20th
century in that the UK was not a net capital exporter.

2. The analysis of imperialism was nevertheless politically correct
for the first 2/3rds of the 20th century, and provides the essential
basis for understanding the first and second world wars and
the revolutionary anti-colonial movements of the period.

3. Imperialism effectively ceased to exist as a force by about
1970 due to the suceess of the anti-imerialist revolutionary movements,
the internal weakening of imperialism by two world wars, and the
immense military strength of the socialist camp at that period.

4. In the period since the counter revolution in the USSR, the
processes which allowed imperialism to develop are again partially
active. This expresses itself most clearly in the effective re-colonisation
of Arabia by the USA and a lesser extent the UK, the gross violation
of the post WWII international legality in the attack on the Federal
Republic of Jugoslavia, and in the recent drive by the USA to
establish military hegemony over central asia. It is also apparent
in the partial re-colonisation of Sierra Leone by the UK.

5. The level of capitalist development is much higher than a
century ago, this limits the scope of potential imperialist development.
The most significant factor here is that both China and India are
now major economic and military powers rather than colonies or
potential colonies. The scope of imperialism thus tends
to be concentrated on Africa and on relatively small and
weak countries in central asia and the middle east.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 02 2002 - 00:00:04 EST