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

Date: Wed Jan 13 2010 - 08:27:08 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.

Hi Paul C:
I think you place above too heavy a determining role on state policies.
Yes, obviously, there's a connection under imperialism between
capital and the state, but imperialism is not a state-form. And
imperialism can - and does - exist even where states are not able
to impose governments on other countries through military or other
means. I think you are confusing one form of imperialism with
imperialism in general under late capitalism.
Let's take an example: Sweden. I would say that Sweden *IS* an
imperialist nation - even though it does not have an aggressive
and expansionist military and does not have the will or the
ability to impose governments on other nations. To understand
how a country like Sweden, Canada, New Zealand, Australia,
Switzerland, Belgium, etc. are currently imperialist (rather
than simply former colonial powers) you have to look at a number
of economic relationships including finance capital, foreign
investment, and other factors. "Neo-colonialism" is, I think, a
useful concept to understand here as it relates to non-
imperialist nations.
In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________
ope mailing list
Received on Wed Jan 13 08:29:39 2010

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