Imperialism: Social Construct? Magdoff explains...

[RadioRaheem84]

I am currently reading Harry Magdoff's Imperialism: From the Colonial Age to the Present and it is amazing. I highly recommend it.

Anyways, in the last chapter of the book Magdoff is contrasting the many different views on Imperialism from Lenin to liberal thinkers like Thomas Hobson, and then to Lenin's critics like Al Szymanski.

Basically he argues that many liberal critics get the Marxist and Leninist conception of Imperialism all wrong. Critics have always asserted that Marxists are wrong because they (the liberals) interpret the analysis to mean the capitalists cannot find profitable investments domestically and thus seek markets abroad. But the point, Magdoff argues, is that the capitalist will not. This misconception is what makes most of the liberal criticism of imperialism so dastardly misleading and why they interpret imperialism as acts of folly by otherwise rational nations, or attribute it to a host of idealist notions such as national glory, etc.

I am still trying to piece together just what Magdoff is actually trying to say.

A little help, please.

[RedSonRising]

I'm not sure what you're saying the difference between "can not" and "will not" find domestic investments profitable is.

In terms of labor, employers can find the same design for investment with higher returns abroad due to the lower wages, which I'm sure you're familiar with. This competition encourages domestic wages to remain low for the survival of jobs, and provides an exhaust vale from which to derive higher profit abroad.

I'm not sure what the author is claiming to be "wrong" or "more accurate". Can you be more clear on the misconception? It seems liberal conceptions assume that the ruling class is doing something out of the ordinary in investing abroad as a mistake of exception, when in reality moving capital and labor to fulfill its needs are something specific to modern globalization but not foreign to traditional capitalism.

[Savage]

Does he mean Liberals understand the Marxist concept of imperialism to be a failure of a capitalist power's home market rather than a progression? To me 'Can not' implies that imperialism is a last resort where as 'Will not' implies that imperialism is in fact an advancement.

[KC]

I always found the idea of "overripeness" extremely vague and suspect. Without reading what you're referring to, my guess is that he is attempting to analyze overripeness in a way that actually makes sense, which IMO isn't really possible under the classical framework.

If I'm correct in interpreting his argument as you've outlined it, it's kind of silly because nobody that I know of has claimed that capital can't find profitable avenues of investment domestically, but rather that the returns on capital invested domestically are less than if it were exported. Thinking in terms of how capital works, this makes sense, although it's certainly not the complete picture, and if you dig into it a little further you find out why this argument of overripeness taken in isolation, as it is often presented, is simply ridiculous.


The need to export capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has become “overripe” and (owing to the backward state of agriculture and the poverty of the masses) capital cannot find a field for “profitable” investment.

So here is where the confusion has always come from for about 98% of people that attempt to learn about classical imperialism theory. This sentence right here. First, I see where the above confusion could happen, however Lenin puts "profitable" in quotes for the obvious reason that it's not his claim but rather those of capital. I still stick by my claim that I haven't heard anyone say that there is no profit to be had in domestic capital investment, though.

[RadioRaheem84]

I still stick by my claim that I haven't heard anyone say that there is no profit to be had in domestic capital investment, though.

The liberal arguments in Magdoff's scenario still think that imperialism is wrong and thus also believe that there can be some domestic profits to be made, they just think the capitalists haven't found it or are just taking their money overseas because it's imply more profitable at the time. They do not necessarily see it as a conscious effort by the capitalists.
They reject the notion that capitalism is not just an economic system but an entire social order. They go where they want, but liberals still have neo-classical presuppositions and thus think there are some sort of economic laws at work which dictate where the capitalists go.

Magdoff continues by giving the example that capitalists care not about finding profitable avenues at home as much as they care about developing Appalachia over New York City. So Lenin and the Marxist concept isn't about some economic law in motion where capitalists will just suddenly go overseas because it's more profitable.

Sorry I totally butchered Magdoff earlier. You guys helped out a lot and KC really nailed it.

I hope the discussion continues.

I mean think about how today Marxists and some radical liberals say that this whole financial mess was a conscious effort by the capitalists and that they're sitting on 2 trillion dollars, practically keeping the world hostage. Mainstream liberals and right wingers would freak out on cable news if someone said this.