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

From: Paul Cockshott <>
Date: Wed Jan 13 2010 - 05:33:20 EST

Surely the difference is pragmatic. A state becomes imperialistic once it has the political or military might along with the motive to impose governments of its own chosing in other countries.
From: [] On Behalf Of Paula []
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 10:15 PM
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Subject: Re: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment

Jerry wrote:
> But, the point is
> that there *IS* a cut-off point. That is, there is a
> VERY REAL division in the capitalist world.

So far this is only an assertion. In order to substantiate it you need to
provide some explanation of what the supposed division is about, including
criteria to differentiate one side from the other.

> Sure, but rent isn't the defining or distinguishing characteristic of
> imperialist nations. To the extent that it exists, it is marginal to them.

So rent by itself does not settle the question. How then do you decide
whether oil-producing nations are 'imperialist' or 'imperialized'? Sorry to
insist, but you have to provide a clear way to distinguish between the two -
otherwise we might start to suspect the distinction is IMAGINARY rather than

Still waiting,

ope mailing list

The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
ope mailing list
Received on Wed Jan 13 05:38:16 2010

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jan 31 2010 - 00:00:02 EST