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

From: Dave Zachariah <>
Date: Tue Dec 29 2009 - 14:53:46 EST

On 2009-12-29 19:59, Dogan wrote:
> 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.
While the political division of the world may be a consequence of
imperialism, it is not how David defines it in his article. There he
says 'imperialism' is the 'era of finance capital', which is vague and
misleading when one considers the resurgence of an era of finance
capital since the end of the 1970s in comparison with say the 1890s.
They are significantly different global political economies.

I would agree with you that re-division of the world is possible in the
future if more states begin use extra-economic means of coercion. But
then you write:
> However, I would not see China among imperialist countries at all.
If there ever was a candidate with imperial ambitions driven by a
capitalist sector it has to be the Chinese state. Look at the FDI it
makes in Africa and Latin America!

> Rather I would see it as country in the transition to socialism.
I'm afraid the Chinese CP is going to make you quite disappointed.

//Dave Z
ope mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 29 15:03:36 2009

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