Globalisation & Imperialism

[Tim Cornelis]

My knowledge of what imperialism entails is not extensive, so I want to here from you if this 'theory' on globalisation and imperialism is accurate or not, by telling which of the following points is inaccurate:


When capitalism dawned, the bourgeoisie was not yet advanced and fairly confined to the national borders of the nation-state.
This lead to intense competition between nation-states, but this competition was concentrated outwards (since more chance of survival than meeting your advanced enemy head on), that is, towards Africa, Asia, and the Americas. In short, modern imperialism.
As capitalism advanced, capital became more concentrated and as a consequence internationalised. Multinational corporations began to form, expand, and increase their influence--what is known as globalisation, the rise of international capital.
This has caused competition between nation-states to diminish as the bourgeoisie's existence transcends these borders.
The consequence of this is that imperialism is now directed towards closed economies (North Korea, Libya, Syria) that are hostile to international capital.


Is this accurate? It makes sense to me, but maybe the reasoning is off.

Also, what is the consequence of this (if accurate) in terms of the outcome for a closed economy that falls prey to international capital? E.g. contemporary Libya. Is it advantageous, disadvantageous, or does it make no difference?

What seems missing here is an inclusion of imperialism such as China's role in Africa (as well as Latin America). The modern-day land grabbing as done by China but also Western corporations has to fit in here somewhere.

Thanks in advance for any input.

[Zulu]

When capitalism dawned, the bourgeoisie was not yet advanced and fairly confined to the national borders of the nation-state.

Formation of nation-states was a result of the dawn of capitalism, not a prerequisite. Although for a while they facilitated the further development of capitalism.

Interestingly enough, the first precursor of transnational corporations, that owned land, real estate and other property and processed money across three continents predated any hint of the formation of the nation-states. I'm talking about the Order of the Knights Templar.


Also, what is the consequence of this (if accurate) in terms of the outcome for a closed economy that falls prey to international capital? E.g. contemporary Libya. Is it advantageous, disadvantageous, or does it make no difference?

Nation-states are simply outdated, now by about fifty years. Of course, their destruction is "disadvantageous" to them, and is likely to be accompanied by casting the exploited classes of those states in quite a plight. But the worse, the better.

[Comrade Jandar]

I believe that imperialism also served as a means of extending the life of capitalism, beyond what Marx theorized, by creating new markets and thus laborers to exploit.

[Blake's Baby]

Marx going back to the Manifesto was writing about capitalism 'battering down the Chinese walls'... he was describing a process of internationalisation of capital. Of capitalisation of the world.

This process is ongoing. How could it not be? Capitalism must constantly expand - it must conquer new markets. But where are these markets to come from? At some point, capitalism must have reached everywhere. There are no more markets left to conquer - just markets that belong to someone lese already. This is the stage Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Bukharin and others theroised had been reached in the early 20th century - hence the First World War, a war for the redivision of the empires and a share of the world market.

But then there's always further exploitation of the existing markets. Since the early 20th we've seen capitalism intruding into all kinds of perviously non-capitalist areas - entertainment for instance: not so much sitting around the piano 'making our own entertainment', first we bought TVs to watch their entertainment, then we bought video games to play their entertainment, then we started rpaying subscriptions to watch and play their entertainment (with adverts) on the equipment we'd already bought... as an example.

So as capitalsim cannot geographically 'extend' (the world is full of capitalism) it must instead grow by 'deepening' into previously non-capitalist aspects of our lives.

Not sure what this has to do with imperialism any more...