RE: [OPE] the role of plunder in recent capitalist history

Date: Fri Jan 23 2009 - 17:26:29 EST

> Because the history of capitalism is so disagreeable it is hard to make the distinction unless one
> has a clear concept of imperialism, ie the world after the 1890's compared to the earlier period
> where there was still parts of the world to be shared out. Now it is all about redistributiion,
> outright, inescapable, confrontation, stealing from others by all means, and within and between
> every imperialist state we can see this in the most explicit forms.
Hi Paul B (and David Y):
Is that what it is "all about" now? Since you make a distinction between plunder and exploitation,
you seem to be claiming that it's _not at all_ about exploitation anymore! Perhaps that was
simply poor sentence construction on your part? In any event, I think it is self-evident that
other processes besides plunder have contributed to capitalist accumulation and the growth of
the economies of imperialist nations: is there no role - from your perspective - in recent
capitalist history of technological change and relative surplus value?
Marxians (and, I think Marx) tended to conceive of plunder as playing a more central
role in the original (primitive) accumulation of capital than during 'late capitalism'. So, it seems
there is a difference in perception about this question. How would you suggest we go
about looking at the empirical/historical evidence for the different positions?
In solidarity, Jerry

ope mailing list
Received on Fri Jan 23 17:28:14 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 31 2009 - 00:00:03 EST