Chief reason for exportation of capital, i.e. imperialism

[Geiseric]

I put the pieces togather that once capitalism has developed enough in one country, in order to keep it advanceing in order to compete with other capitalisms existing internationally, i.e. pre WW1 france and germany, one must export capital and invest in other countries developments, and in the process take a share of that country for private capitalist intrests. However I was wondering, what was the point where domestic european capitalism reached its peak and was forced to imperialise africa, asia, and south america? Like what decade was capitalism advanced at the point where imperialism was the only viable option for profit? And what event marked this turning point for capitalism?

[S.Artesian]

I put the pieces togather that once capitalism has developed enough in one country, in order to keep it advanceing in order to compete with other capitalisms existing internationally, i.e. pre WW1 france and germany, one must export capital and invest in other countries developments, and in the process take a share of that country for private capitalist intrests. However I was wondering, what was the point where domestic european capitalism reached its peak and was forced to imperialise africa, asia, and south america? Like what decade was capitalism advanced at the point where imperialism was the only viable option for profit? And what event marked this turning point for capitalism?


Not quite that static and linear. After the US Civil War, when US railroads, US manufacturing, manufacturing productivity, and agricultural production and productivity increased almost in lock-step, you find US capital moving into Mexico in mines, agriculture, and most particularly railroads. It isn't a situation where... oh, profit shuts down in my country, therefore I move into other countries.

The development of capitalism cannot be separated from the development of the world markets, and the world markets cannot be separated from exports by more advanced countries [whether exports of commodities or "capital"-- a nonsensical distinction since commodities are capital, and capital requires its own conversion into commodities to increase] to less advanced countries.

Imperialism was never, is never, the "only viable option for profit." And if you take a look at US and European capitalism today you see how the advanced countries, despite their increased investments in China, India, Brazil, central and Eastern Europe, still maintain the majority of FDI in other advanced capitalist countries.

I think we're much better off looking at a period when capitalism starts and consolidates a transformation from what Marx called the "formal domination" of labor by capital to the real domination, a transition marked by the "replacement" of absolute surplus value by relative surplus value, i.e. instead of simply lengthening the working day, capital now compels less labor, proportionately, animate greater masses of capital values in machinery, and thus reproduces a value equivalent to its own wage, in less time. The necessary labor time shrinks, the surplus labor time expands.

This corresponds to a changing organic composition of capital, a change in the value proportions between living and objectified labor; and... there is also the changing technical composition of capital, where even if the value of the means of production declines due to cheapening and improvements in the production process, the expanded productivity of labor through the addition of machinery increases, massively the quantity of use-values, thus triggering a decline in the rate of valorization itself.

I think that process is initiated and established as the "new mode" of accumulation during the period known as the long deflation, 1873-1898, at the end of which, the US emerges to displace Spain as a global imperial power.