[OPE-L:6671] Imperialism

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 04:32:05 EST

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Asfilho@aol.com
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:15:06 EST

Jerry says:

>I don't know that it is the case that one country exploits others. Wouldn't
> it be more accurate to say that one *state* contributes to the
> and oppression of workers and peasants in other countries?

 It doesn't really matter if you say country or state. My question is *what
the international process of exploitation?* If marxists are to have a theory
of imperialism - indeed, if we want to use this word - we must have an
explanation for this process.

 However, Jerry may be using a looser ("political") definition of
(sorry, I am not clear about this, Jerry). Then it would be as if the US,
example, shored up local bourgeoisies to support their extraction of surplus
value at home. This is likely, but *why* would the US state do this? Purely
for political gain, or is there an economic gain too? Note that in
traditional marxist theories of imperialism it seems that there is a purely
economic process of exploitation going on.

 Jerry says:

 >Who benefits? The ruling class of the imperialist nation, right? How?
> that's a bit more complicated. We could talk about the role of
> corporations in modern imperialism (which frequently require state
> protection), we could talk about markets in the imperialised nations, we
> could talk about raw materials that become elements of constant
> capital and commodities that go into the reproduction of labour-power, we
> could talk about the international migration of labour power, we could
> about the economic benefits of war, and, of course, there is the issue
> by David Y concerning the so-called "aristocracy of labor" in the
> nations. Sounds like a lot of important stuff to discuss.

 This seems to indicate that we cannot have a single, integrated theory of
 imperialism. This looks like the counter-tendencies to the LTRPF: a range
 processes at different levels, not necessarily connected between them. This
 is possible, but, again, traditional marxist theories of imperialism are
 like that. They indicate that there is one "general" process running in the
 background, even if other process and phenomena may be influential at other
 levels of analysis.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST