Re: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment

From: Paul Bullock <>
Date: Wed Dec 30 2009 - 09:58:46 EST

Dave Z,

why do you exclude inter imperialist rivalries as central to the definition
of the epoch of imperialism?

Paul B

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Zachariah" <>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <>
Cc: ""D. Göçmen"" <>
Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment

> Hi Dogan,
> On 2009-12-30 00:10, you wrote:
>> If you take the term "stage" then you may see more clearly what it means.
>> It is used to differentiate and define stages with their apparent
>> differences in the development of capitalism. But if you look at Hobson's
>> and Lenin's books they investigate and analyse the whole internal
>> structure of capital, society and the state: rise of monopolies, merge of
>> industrial and bank capital and domination of financial capital, the end
>> of democracy and accomplishment of the division of the world and so on.
>> does it make any sense to you to differ between stages in the development
>> of capitalism?
> It does, but despite the merits of Hobson's and Lenin's analysis the
> framework is inadequate given the hindsight of the 20th century.
> The way, say, the British and French economies operated globally between
> 1870-1945 are significantly different from the mechanisms by which the US
> economy has dominated it after WWII. Science does advance after all and
> there are numerous theoretical and empirical problems of the old theory
> that have been brought up in this thread by now.
>> It is always the same way you choose to communicate: to say always what
>> is not is but never what is: what is the imperialism according to your
>> approach?
> Perhaps I have the misfortune of remembering the past posts in this
> thread. But I quite clearly gave a working definition of the specificity
> of imperialism in the very first post.
> I hope I can clarify my take here:
> Capitalist imperialism is the policy of extra-economic coercion used
> by states to enable capitalist relations of production and surplus
> appropriation in regions where they either do not exist or are
> resisted.
> In addition I would say that the global political economy has become
> dominated by the rentier interest or 'finance' since the end of the 1970s.
> The growth of the unproductive financial sector has been detrimental both
> to the working-classes as well as accumulation of the real capital stock.
> //Dave Z
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Wed Dec 30 10:06:08 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 31 2009 - 00:00:02 EST