What is turbo-capitalism or casino capitalism?

[spice756]

Also what is "market fundamentalism or cancer-stage capitalism.

Does this have any thing to do with countries cutting social programs and welfare state ,free state run eye care ,free state run dental care and heathcare so on.Or dos free trade or G8 or G20 have some thing to do with it why it is being cut or move to the private sector.

[GPDP]

As far as I know, the only people who use those kinds of terms are liberals and social-democrats who have a problem with laissez-faire, corporate-dominated capitalism with few to no regulations or safety nets, but not capitalism itself.

In other words, when they add a word such as "hyper" or "turbo" or whatever before the word capitalism, they're implying them to be especially bad kinds of capitalism that need to be tamed by reform, as if there's a "good" kind of capitalism they want to return to or create.

Personally, I think such terms are a little silly. Yeah, capitalism without regulations and safety nets is worse than capitalism with those things, but I'd rather we get rid of the whole damn thing rather than merely patch it up into a non-"casino" capitalism.

[spice756]

I was not sure if they where meaning higher stange of capitalism in the Karl Marx and Lenin publication of growth and imperialism , if I understand it capitalism has to grow .

If so that may explain before in the past of small shop owners and very small businesses and now very large corporations and only hand full of competitors.

Or I thought it may mean a monoply effect of capitalism a almost end stange.I was not sure if free trade , globalization , G8 and G20 was away of slowing down the almost end stange of capitalism a almost monoply effect .



As far as I know, the only people who use those kinds of terms are liberals and social-democrats who have a problem with laissez-faire, corporate-dominated capitalism with few to no regulations or safety nets, but not capitalism itself.

I think most of them are that make big buisiness and capitalism fair that does not exploit ,low pay ,work safety,work compensation ,sick days and environmental problems.

They do not have a problem with the rich ,big buisiness or capitalism they hate the unregulated big buisiness and want it to be more fair

[spice756]

Is globalization really Imperialism ?

This article on what is Imperialism or higher stage of captlism is really hard to understand

http://sfr-21.org/imp-hsc.html



At the present time, we can easily recognize in Lenin's analysis, not only American and European imperialism, but also the World Bank, IMF, WTO and Third-World debt, as described in 1965 by Kwame Nkrumah in Neo-colonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism.
Imperialism is enormously profitable. Hobson estimated that in 1899 it had provide Great Britain an income of 90 million to 100 million pounds on the basis of its foreign capital, "the income of the rentiers." As Lenin emphasized, "The income of the rentiers is five times greater than the income obtained from the foreign trade of the biggest "trading" country in the world! This is the essence of imperialism and imperialist parasitism... The world has become divided into a handful of usurer states and a vast majority of debtor states. 'At the top of the list of foreign investments,' says SchuIze-Gaevernitz, 'are those placed in politically dependent or allied countries: Great Britain grants loans to Egypt, Japan, China and South America. Her navy plays here the part of bailiff in case of necessity.'"


I thought Imperialism was when large or powerful countries seek to extend their control or authorities by conquering weak countries ( Empire ) The take over of weak countries ( Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the British Empire )


We have no Empire or Imperialism today.But can there be Economic Imperialism controlled through globalization .What about Oligopoly can turbo-capitalism just mean Oligopoly or is it just globalization .

[iskrabronstein]

Imperialism is used in a different manner by Marxists than its colloquial usage - the term refers to the investment of capital in underdeveloped countries by larger, more developed capitalist states. This creates a fundamental deformation of the economy and political system within the imperialized country, skewing the interests of the colonial ruling classes toward those of their foreign backers, and retarding social development in favor of easy exploitation of natural resources and human capital.

Lenin argued that imperialism as described above was peculiar to developed industrial capitalism, but I think the analysis can be extended to other imperial powers as well - Rome and Achaemenid Persia, which also followed a pattern of infrastructural development in conquered territories and exploitation of local resources and human capital spring to mind.

The difference now is that capitalism, having greatly integrated the economic infrastructure of the world, permits imperialism without the necessity of direct invasion and occupation.

[Skooma Addict]

Imperialism is used in a different manner by Marxists than its colloquial usage - the term refers to the investment of capital in underdeveloped countries by larger, more developed capitalist states.

So when an organization from America helps build medical facilities in Africa, that is imperialism?

[Obs]

So when an organization from America helps build medical facilities in Africa, that is imperialism?
If this is done with the intent of making a profit, yes.

[iskrabronstein]

And this is why I think your analysis is ridiculous - what type of hospitals? Who is building them? Who has access to them? This single-faceted view is pointless.

If Mugabe built a hospital or two, it's still imperialism. If it comes bound up with IMF development packages that open markets for American companies while throwing a few infrastructural scraps toward the poor, it's still imperialism.

Imperialism is a systematic phenomenon, it must be analyzed as a system.

[Thirsty Crow]

And this is why I think your analysis is ridiculous - what type of hospitals? Who is building them? Who has access to them? This single-faceted view is pointless.

This cannot be stzressed enough.
Imperialism does not consist of individual instances of investment. It is a structural phenomenon pertaining to the nature of the capitalist mode of production (which is, I'm afraid, beyond the understanding of capitalist apologists).

[Skooma Addict]

And this is why I think your analysis is ridiculous


My analysis? I was using your definition.


what type of hospitals? Who is building them? Who has access to them?

Does it matter? The hospital is "the investment of capital in underdeveloped countries by larger, more developed capitalist states." This, according to you, is imperialism. So unless you are going to add more qualifiers, I don't see how anything I said is ridiculous.

[iskrabronstein]

Well, I could list out a systematic definition in an essay of multiple pages, or you could read Lenin.

[Dean]

My analysis? I was using your definition.



Does it matter? The hospital is "the investment of capital in underdeveloped countries by larger, more developed capitalist states." This, according to you, is imperialism. So unless you are going to add more qualifiers, I don't see how anything I said is ridiculous.

If the net result is profit by the larger capitalist state without localized economic empowerment, then it is imperialism. Most aid takes on this characteristic.

This is precisely how the "rebuilding of Iraq" went. Capitalist firms exploited the nation and didn't create systems and infrastructure which would benefit the Iraqis, either via localized control, quality production or employment of local labor.

[Skooma Addict]

So if coca cola decided to open a plant in Africa, is that imperialism?

[Baseball]

So if coca cola decided to open a plant in Africa, is that imperialism?

Yes. Unless the goods folks in Altalnta do not benefit from building that plant.

What was the old saying? 'the only thing worse than the workers being exploited by capitalists, is the workers NOT being exploited by capitalists.'

[Skooma Addict]

Yes. Unless the goods folks in Altalnta do not benefit from building that plant.See that just doesn't make any sense. Building a factory in another country is not imperialism. In fact in many cases the western company offers the highest wages in the area for low skilled workers. So now according to your definition imperialism is not necessarily a bad thing.


What was the old saying? 'the only thing worse than the workers being exploited by capitalists, is the workers NOT being exploited by capitalists.' "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."-Joan Robinson

[Baseball]

[
QUOTE=Skooma Addict;1821743]See that just doesn't make any sense. Building a factory in another country is not imperialism. In fact in many cases the western company offers higher the highest wages in the area for low skilled workers. So now according to your definition imperialism is not necessarily a bad thing.

There is very little of socialism which makes sense.


"
The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."-Joan Robinson

There you go. Thanks.

[RGacky3]

See that just doesn't make any sense. Building a factory in another country is not imperialism. In fact in many cases the western company offers the highest wages in the area for low skilled workers. So now according to your definition imperialism is not necessarily a bad thing.

Imperialism is'nt the Capitalists allocating resources, its the POWER of them to allocate resources, the fact that they own them. THe fact that the workers must rely of the capitalists for a job, and a job which in the end will only benefit the capitalists, thats exploitation.

What we want is'nt for Capitalists to not invest, its for their investment power to be democratized.

[Dean]

So if coca cola decided to open a plant in Africa, is that imperialism?
No, its charity :laugh:

[spice756]

See that just doesn't make any sense.

The Iraq war was imperialism do to oil was state run.When the oil was not state run the US supported Irag and give them money and military stuff.

But when they nationalized the oil the US became enemy of Iraq.It funny how the US supported Iraq when Iraq invade pakistan and Iran after the revolution in Iran and the US became very hostile.

Before the revolution Iran was very friendly with the US .