Re: [OPE] fascism / opposing imperialist military intervention inLibya

From: <>
Date: Fri Mar 25 2011 - 10:24:49 EDT

Hi Jerry and Paula,

As I understand it, Lenin defined imperialism as a stage in the
development of capitalism, this stage being characterized basically by the
prevalence of monopoly capital. Imperialism thus refers to a historically
new particular structural organization of capital, which seems to me to be
theoretically consistent. It also seems to me that in this sense Lenin's
definition is still valid today, except if one can characterize the
emergence of a qualitatively new structural stage in capitalism.

Lenin's view has however been mistaken, in the sense that imperialism has
been understood mostly as a political stand by the more powerful states.
In this sense one cannot say that the whole world is imperialist or that
all countries are imperialist, but at the same time saying this does not
deny that the whole world economy is imperialist.

There can be no doubt, imo, that monopoly capital, in the sense of Lenin's
definition, has become largely dominant all over the world, ie monopolies
dominate the economy of the whole world. In this sense one can say that
the whole world is today imperialist. But monopoly capital - industrial,
commercial and banking -, as well as political and military power, is not
uniformly distributed throughout the world. The polarization between rich
and poor countries - powerful and powerless - is a product of
capitalism/imperialism. Every country in its present condition is a
product of the development of capitalism/imperialism, be it Haiti, Brazil,
the US, Iemen, and so on, in the sense that it is a part of the
capitalist/imperialist economy and society. The position of each country
in the capitalist world economy is conditioned by the development of
monopoly capital.

>> What a stubborn man. If you agreed with me that we want MORE THAN
>> bourgeois
>> democratic rights, you should simply have said so or stayed quiet. But
>> you
>> picked an unnecessary fight and ended up making silly statements about
>> "100%
>> exploitation".
> Hi Paula:
> All you had to do was carefully read what I wrote. The only thing that was
> silly
> was that I had to repeat 4-5 times what I wrote before you understood it.
> I'm
> still not convinced, though, that we are in agreement since you appear to
> me
> to fail to recognize the downside of bourgeois democracy.
>> "Whereas your view on this issue coincides - to a great extent - with
>> the
>> geopolitical interests of the leading imperialist nations including the
>> US,
>> the UK, and France."
>> Those nations have absolutely no interest in defining themselves and
>> their
>> other rivals as imperialist.
> They have an interest in saying that what they do, all nations do and
> hence
> they shouldn't be condemned for it. To claim that virtually all nations
> are
> imperialist is quite similar to claiming that none are: in either case,
> the
> expression becomes meaningless.
>> Imperialism is a stage in the history of capitalism, characterized
>> by strong monopolistic tendencies, economic competition of nation-states
>> in
>> the context of a world market, etc - as per the classical Marxist
>> theory.
>> Therefore, all nation-states that participate in this stage of
>> capitalist
>> history are imperialist.
> Your "therefore" does not logically follow. The reasoning is similar to a
> claim that since crime is rampant in x community then all residents of
> x 'participate' in crime.
> Also, historically, it makes no sense, imo. If it were true, then Sierra
> Leone
> and the other 9 of the 10 poorest nations in the world in 2010 would be
> considered
> to be imperialist nations today! I can't imagine any reputable historian
> agreeing with that claim.
>> The weakest imperialist
>> nation-state is still imperialist, just like a chihuahua is still a dog.
> oy vey.
> You have defined the animal kingdom in such a way that all species
> (countries)
> are imperialist (dogs). This mapping of the forest (world) makes it
> impossible
> to understand the complex inter-relationship among species and breeds
> (countries
> and nationalities, classes, and groups).
> This is not to say that the theory of imperialism wouldn't benefit by a
> critical
> re-thinking of its applicability today - as, for example, was done by
> Milios
> and Sotiropoulis. But, the claim that all independent nation-states are
> imperialist
> is a non-starter, imo.
> In solidarity, Jerry
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list

ope mailing list
Received on Fri Mar 25 10:36:00 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 31 2011 - 00:00:02 EDT