export of capital is of course not only criterion to classify imperialism. 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.
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? does it make any sense to you to differ between stages in the development of capitalism?
From: Dave Zachariah <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <email@example.com>
Cc: GERALD LEVY <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wed, Dec 30, 2009 12:17 am
Subject: Re: [OPE] Britain--parasitic and decaying capitalism: A comment
On 2009-12-29 21:45, Jerry wrote:
> If you think of the export of capital as an export and expansion of a > social relation (most especially, the class relation between > capitalists and wage-workers) then it's quite real (but not without > its contradictory aspects).
No one would deny that investment across regions, 'capital export', expands the social relations of capitalism.
But that is the point I'm making, that this (and similar) features cannot reasonably be the defining element of imperialism for it occurs significantly in countries that are not considered to be 'imperialist'. E.g. Japan or China. In other words, imperialism is inadequately theorized in this framework.
ope mailing list
ope mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 29 18:16:18 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 31 2009 - 00:00:02 EST