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

From: Dave Zachariah <>
Date: Thu Jan 14 2010 - 15:13:23 EST

Thanks for your willingness to actually answer questions that I have, as
I'm struggling to understand the structure of this theoretical framework.

On 2010-01-14 13:06, GERALD LEVY wrote:
> I never claimed that Sweden dominates India economically. What I
> claimed is that the economies of the former colonies tend to be
> dominated by imperialist nations.
Ok, so (i) Sweden is imperialist, (ii) India is subject of imperialism
but (iii) not subject of the imperialism of Sweden. Let me ask:

1. Which economies does imperialist Sweden dominate?
2. Which countries *do* dominate India?
> Neo-colonialism describes a relationship in which the wealth and control of the resources in the formal colonized world still tends to be under the ownership and control of the imperialist nations.
3. Are these resources under the control of the imperialist *nations* or
by capitalists based within the territory of that nation-state?

> even following independence, the wealth in former colonized nations still tends to be controlled by 'outside' forces in the advanced capitalist nations
4. Does the resources owned and controlled by Indian capitalists abroad
make India an 'imperialist nation'? If not, why?
> bribery is commonly used in these instances (imperialist nations know how to reward their supporters - and punish their enemies - in the neo-colonies).
5. which sets of economic agents are the recipients of the so-called
'bribe'? The concept implies a reward that persuades the agents to act
differently from their normal interests.

> After apartheid, there was majority rule but the wealth within the nation still tended to be owned by the same corporations and individuals.
South Africa, at the very least after its formation as a republic, along
with Algeria belonged to a different class of political economies
altogether. Unlike, say British India, South Africa was a
settler-colonial state whose political economy established by settlers
depended on the exploitation of the indigenous population.

> Sweden certainly isn't the major imperialist nation in the world today. But they are a minor one and they share in the benefits of imperialism.
6. Who are 'they'?
7. What are the benefits that you are referring to? Profits from
investments abroad?

> And, as I mentioned before, they are part of the European Union - an imperialist bloc.
7. Which role does Britain --- arguably the leading imperialist state in
Europe today --- play in this 'imperialist bloc'?

> The specific type - form - of imperialism can change.
This is about as theoretically useful as saying that capitalism and
feudalism are merely different forms of surplus extraction.

//Dave Z
ope mailing list
Received on Thu Jan 14 15:14:58 2010

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