the point you are making here is not relevant for a general definition of imperialism. It is relevant only as it indicates to an aspect of the theory of imperialism. The classical (Lenin's) definition of imperialism can be used to explain this phenomenon. As David points out in his article this fact has to do with the competition among imperialist countries to re-divide the world. In addition, if you read David's article carefully this issue is already dealt with and possible political consequences are described accurately as I think.
However, I would not see China among imperialist countries at all. Rather I would see it as country in the transition to socialism. But this is another story.
From: Paul Cockshott <email@example.com>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Tue, Dec 29, 2009 8:03 pm
Subject: RE: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment
At the beginning there one passage where he is a bit too strict when he says:
"The export of capital -that is global investment - as opposed to export of
commodities becomes the distinguishing feature of imperialism." While I share
this idea I would have not said "as opposed to" but as different from, because
though the determining feature of imperialism is export of capital it has been
accompanied always by the export of commodities.
The problem with this is that the USA and UK have not be net exporters of
capital for a long time, the main exporters of capital are Japan and China.
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
ope mailing list
ope mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 29 14:07:39 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 31 2009 - 00:00:02 EST