[OPE-L:6708] Re: Imperialism

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Mon Mar 11 2002 - 03:29:10 EST

Re Alfredo's [6706]:

> I agree with most of the "non-economic" aspects of imperialism raised in recent posts. We can obviously find many such examples. The trouble with them is that they do *not* lead to a theory of imperialism, but only to a collection of more or less infuriating anecdotes. 
In order to avoid the latter, we need a theory of international power structures. And such a theory - with apologies to political scientists, anthropologists and other social scientists - can *only* be an economic theory. <

I ask that you explain this assertion: *why* must a theory of
international power structures *only* be an economic theory?
How would you answer the charge that such an economic-
only theory would be economic-reductionist?

> Unfortunately, we do not have such a theory. This is what I find alarming. It is not surprising though - since there is no developed marxian theory of the state or of trade, and marxian contributions to the theory of finance are only in their infancy, we would have obvious difficulties synthesizing them into a theory of imperialism. <

I agree that this is a big part of the problem and that a theory of
imperialism should be linked to value and the value-form and the
internationalization of capital (itself an aspect of the capital-form
in that it is expression of the concentration  and centralization of 
capital) as well as the "post-Capital"  subjects  that you refer to above.  
There are some problems, though, with reconciling  your two 
suggestions since a theory of the state can not be understood *only* 
in terms of economic theory.

What do others think about these important issues?

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST