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

From: Paul Bullock <>
Date: Fri Jan 15 2010 - 05:53:57 EST

Paul C,

this is quite mistaken, and seems to want to ignore the fact that we are
talking about the domination, seizure and use of markets in any way that is
suitable. The exact political form of control/influence will change
constantly, colonies, semi colonies, high indebtedness (Highly indebted
states), military occupation, the imperialist political backing of a
landlord class, etc etc For you to focus on this variety is deliberately to
confuse the issue, and avoid the basic material facts concerning the
accumulation of capital on a grand scale. The Lenin quote given by David
Yaffe makes this absolutely clear.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Cockshott" <>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 4:42 PM
Subject: RE: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment

> The point I am making is that wars to divide and redivide the world only
> make sense if you are talking of territorial empires with customs barriers
> and the like.
> That was the key issue in Lenins analysis of imperialism -- that it was
> the cause of world war. If you remove all the key features of territorial
> empire then why do you think it is still a likely cause of world war?
> ________________________________________
> From: [] On
> Behalf Of GERALD LEVY []
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:00 PM
> To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
> Subject: RE: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment
>> The point I am making is that the division of the world that Lenin was
>> talking about was into territorial empires of the great powers,
>> both WWI and WWII were wars to achieve such empires. Britain, France,
>> Portugal, Holand, Russia, Turkey, USA had such empires, and
>> Germany Italy and Japan were seeking to achieve them. This was the kind
>> of
>>imperialism that killed tens of millions of people in two great wars.
> Hi Paul:
> The specific type - form - of imperialism can change. For instance,
> Neo-Liberal policies favored by the major imperialist powers in recent
> decades is somewhat different that the policies favored by them in the
> preceding period. This does not stop them from being imperialist any more
> than a change in the the specific location of individual spots on a zebra
> changes that animal into another species.
>> The empires once established and ruled were protected by customs
>> barriers,
> contingent to, not necessary condition, for imperialism.
>> were subjected to heavy taxation,
> ditto.
>> and were exclusive areas for investment
>> and emigration by the invading power.
> ditto.
>> The 5 victorious powers do have vetos in the UN, but this was not by
>> virtue of them being imperialist powers but because they were the
>> opponents of Germany and Japan who had the largest forces in the field.
>> If you are saying that this was the criterion for imperialism -- having
>> a big army,
> I didn't say or imply that - or the rest.
> In solidarity, Jerry
>> then you are dropping all our previous arguments about capital export
>> and>financial influence and saying that imperialism is just a matter of
>> armies.> Your argument here implies that you think that the USSR was an
>> imperialist> power by virtue of being one of the 5 permanent members of
>> the security
>> council, and that Taiwan was likewise whilst it held a similar position.
>> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Fri Jan 15 05:56:18 2010

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