Re: [OPE] On Rereading Lenin's Imperialism: A Rejoinder [Cyrus Bina'sResponse to Paula Cerni's post]

From: Paula <>
Date: Thu Jan 21 2010 - 19:13:18 EST

In reply to John Millios' and Dimitris Sotiropoulos' contribution.

If I understand correctly, this perspective is quite close to my own. In
particular I wish to draw attention to the notion of a complex and unequal
'imperialist chain' that IMO extends to all present capitalist states -
though there seems to be some ambiguity on this issue in Millios' and
Sotiropulos' formulation, so I would appreciate their clarification.

Aside from this I raise only a few minor doubts and questions.

> Classical approaches to imperialism were based on a profound rejection
> of Marx’s conceptualization of ‘competition’.

Not sure how profound this rejection really was, since the classical
approaches understood monopoly capitalism as arising out of free

>The relationship of ‘interiority’
> between state and capital represents a twofold condition. On the one
> hand it precludes the self-diffusion of statist linkages into a global
> ‘empire’ that purportedly supervises homogeneously global economic
> structures. On the other hand it prevents capital that moves beyond
> the national borders from retaining a ‘certificate of origin’.

Not convinced that this 'certificate of origin' is really lost, or at least
completely lost. Consider for example the current dispute concerning
Google's operations in China.

> We find Bina’s reading of Marx’s concept of competition misleading. In
> fact, what he actually has in common with the classical Marxist
> theories is the rejection of the Marxian concept of social capital.
> This is an important differentiation from Marx’s analysis.

In my article I don't use of the concept of social capital either, but as
you describe it I do not see it as in any way contrary to the classical
theories of imperialism.

> In this sense, the only authentic ‘empire’
> is the imperialist chain in its entirety.

Is there a danger that this formulation concedes too much ground to the
notion of one global or transnational empire (in the Hardt and Negri sense,


ope mailing list
Received on Thu Jan 21 19:15:20 2010

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