Imperialism economic and geopolitical?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I've read Lenin's Imperialism quite some time ago, I get the idea that imperialism as such has existed long before capitalism, but we need to dig deeper to look for causes of that imperialism and under capitalism they are economic. At least that's how the argument of capitalism-imperialism relationship go that I've heard quite some times.

My question is - doesn't the left ignore the geopolitical aspect of imperialism under capitalism? Economic considerations etc surely do affect how and when imperialism is carried out, but isn't there a geopolitical component in imperialism as well? Getting power just for the sake of it and not for wealth considerations and not because of capitalists' pressure to do so and not because of capitalist ideology?

What would be your thoughts on the subject?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think it makes sense to separate power from the economic structure of society. Pre-capitalist empires were driven by trade, taxes, plunder and colonisation - all economic categories. Generally, though, this wasn't imperialism except in the broadest sense. Imperialism, in Leninist theory, is the highest stage of capitalism. "Economic imperialism" defines imperialism, with military etc. imperialism being an instrument in the service of imperialist nations and cartels.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Getting power just for the sake of it and not for wealth considerations and not because of capitalists' pressure to do so and not because of capitalist ideology?

What would be your thoughts on the subject?

Well I don't know what getting power for the sake of it would mean on a social level. Sure individuals might want power for themselves... But that's always within the context of what power is and means and how it operates in a given society.

Power for a slave owner would have different implications than power for a boss today. Power for feudal rulers means more individual power, more land and peasants under your power. Power for capitalists means something different and so in England, for example, bourgeois power was able to overtake and subordinate aristocratic power because capital became more important than land and titles in wielding power.

On a larger scale the same is true of ruling groups in society. Roman imperialism was to add land and slaves to the rulers, this increased their power. Russia today or the u.s. Don't want to control Central Asia or the Middle East because the land itself, they want to ensure that each empire can maintain control over trade routes and resources necessary to maintain and expand the competitive edge of industries.

[Dodo]

I've read Lenin's Imperialism quite some time ago, I get the idea that imperialism as such has existed long before capitalism, but we need to dig deeper to look for causes of that imperialism and under capitalism they are economic. At least that's how the argument of capitalism-imperialism relationship go that I've heard quite some times.

My question is - doesn't the left ignore the geopolitical aspect of imperialism under capitalism? Economic considerations etc surely do affect how and when imperialism is carried out, but isn't there a geopolitical component in imperialism as well? Getting power just for the sake of it and not for wealth considerations and not because of capitalists' pressure to do so and not because of capitalist ideology?

What would be your thoughts on the subject?

I think I understand what you mean. A Marxist however would not look at a country independent of its classes and the things which drives the ruling class hence the international policies.
Even if imperialism is driven by "strategic" interests, it is a way to get a lever over competing ruling classes. Or maybe to even weaken other ruling classes directly through military presence..etc

There is a difference between the colonialism of "mercantile" era and colonialism of industrial era as well. 19-20th century imperialism was directly related to globalization of capital where the core countries used it to create immense amounts of surplus as colonies acted as
* cheap raw material producers whose industries for competing seriously weakened
*and extra markets to sell goods produced in the core counry giving room to massive corporations

previously, colonialism was driven by feudal-mercantile motives
*get more land because we cannot increase "productivity"
*create room for merchants to buy a good cheap and sell dear

capitalist imperialism is important due to rise of a "market" that drove all these processes and motives of imperialism.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Well I don't know what getting power for the sake of it would mean on a social level. Sure individuals might want power for themselves... But that's always within the context of what power is and means and how it operates in a given society.

Power for a slave owner would have different implications than power for a boss today. Power for feudal rulers means more individual power, more land and peasants under your power. Power for capitalists means something different and so in England, for example, bourgeois power was able to overtake and subordinate aristocratic power because capital became more important than land and titles in wielding power.

On a larger scale the same is true of ruling groups in society. Roman imperialism was to add land and slaves to the rulers, this increased their power. Russia today or the u.s. Don't want to control Central Asia or the Middle East because the land itself, they want to ensure that each empire can maintain control over trade routes and resources necessary to maintain and expand the competitive edge of industries.

Thanks for you great answer! However, I guess my problem lies little elswhere and Dogukan got closer to that. More specifically, I have a problem in blaming *all* imperialism on capitalism. I understand that under capitalism, imperialism manifests itself in capitalist relations, i.e. as you said, if you want power you need to take control of resources, trade routes etc.

However, that doesn't mean that capitalism produces imperialism, only that it, by necessity, manifests itself in capitalist relations. So you might have a leader of an imperialist country that wants power just for the sake of it, not because he cares about competitiveness of the industry or whatnot, but because he wants to control other countries politically, just for the sake of it. For that he doesn't *necessarily* need competitive industries, although that helps, but merely huge military resources.

I am not sure if you get what I mean, but I have a problem when leftists attribute all imperialism to capitalism as if all imperialism must fit Lenin's definition.

Isn't it more that imperialism is not that much a result of capitalism, but of a class society in general, to which Dogukan was hinting, as far as I understand?

[Rafiq]

The Anglo saxon positivist notion of economics has no place in Marxism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

However, that doesn't mean that capitalism produces imperialism, only that it, by necessity, manifests itself in capitalist relations. So you might have a leader of an imperialist country that wants power just for the sake of it, not because he cares about competitiveness of the industry or whatnot, but because he wants to control other countries politically, just for the sake of it. For that he doesn't *necessarily* need competitive industries, although that helps, but merely huge military resources.no, I don't think so. First, "imperialism" isn't a thing, it doesn't have means or motives outside of the societies that this phenomena happens. Second, societies don't function through "great men" in a Marxist view. A leader who has personal ambitions that are not supported by some segment of the ruling class are generally replaced sooner or later. It may seem from the outside that a bush or Putin just makes rash decisions based on some unknown logic... But really it's just that most of us are not invited to take part in the real debates and decisions which happen at the top.


Isn't it more that imperialism is not that much a result of capitalism, but of a class society in general, to which Dogukan was hinting, as far as I understand?ruling groups expanding their control and influence... Requires groups who rule over divided societies. So yes, to have this kind of control in any form, class society is necessary, but that isn't very useful for understanding the dynamics and things at play in modern imperialism. In fact, pundits usually don't call modern imperialism, imperialism because land isn't officially annexed. To say that imperialism is simply due to class society would be as useful as saying class rule is due to class society, it's true but so generalized that it becomes totally featureless and abstract. It tells us rulers wanna rule, but leaves out: how, why, who, etc.

And I don't know any Marxist who doesn't think there were pre-capitalist forms of imperialism. But modern imperialism as I see it, is due to capitalist relations, not feudal or for the need to increase slaves, etc. and certainly not for the liberal explanations of imperialism: human nature, testosterone, etc.

[robbo203]

And I don't know any Marxist who doesn't think there were pre-capitalist forms of imperialism. But modern imperialism as I see it, is due to capitalist relations, not feudal or for the need to increase slaves, etc. and certainly not for the liberal explanations of imperialism: human nature, testosterone, etc.

Yes this is correct and since capitalism is a global system it needs to be clearly understood that imperialism itself is globally grounded. If it is not manifest it is latent everywhere and in line with the logic of capital's own dynamic.

What that means is that it is quite misleading to talk in the essentialist language of "oppressor" countries and "oppressed" countries; there are only more successful and less successful imperialist countries but there is no such thing as a "non imperialist" country in this fundamental sense. This gives the lie to those left wing supporters of bourgeois national liberation struggles in the guize of "fighting imperialism". As if a nation-state in modern capitalism could ever exist in splendid isolation from other nation states.

Necessarily, then, all nationalist struggles are intrinsically imperialist in character and really amount to renegotiating the terms under which the nation state relates to other nation states, obviously in the perceived interests of the former. The problem is capitalism not imperialism per se which is a consequence of capitalism - at least in the modern world as you rightly suggest.

[Dodo]

Thanks for you great answer! However, I guess my problem lies little elswhere and Dogukan got closer to that. More specifically, I have a problem in blaming *all* imperialism on capitalism. I understand that under capitalism, imperialism manifests itself in capitalist relations, i.e. as you said, if you want power you need to take control of resources, trade routes etc.

However, that doesn't mean that capitalism produces imperialism, only that it, by necessity, manifests itself in capitalist relations. So you might have a leader of an imperialist country that wants power just for the sake of it, not because he cares about competitiveness of the industry or whatnot, but because he wants to control other countries politically, just for the sake of it. For that he doesn't *necessarily* need competitive industries, although that helps, but merely huge military resources.

I am not sure if you get what I mean, but I have a problem when leftists attribute all imperialism to capitalism as if all imperialism must fit Lenin's definition.

Isn't it more that imperialism is not that much a result of capitalism, but of a class society in general, to which Dogukan was hinting, as far as I understand?

You definetly should not limit yourself with Leninist "dogma". There is no single law of history in Marxism.
You have to ask yourself questions based on real relations.
How did that guy who is pushing for a state's imperialist agenda got his power? Where does his power rest on, what kind of a system and production relations? What are his motivations for further conquest?

In the feudal period, the motivation came from further seizure of land as land was the only main capital. You would not "invest" in productivity in a pre-capitalist mode of production, at least for a very long time. The relations were not "commercialized" and there was no "market driven" world economy.
So colonial history that started in the feudal era was motivated by seizure of land, both in the case of European who went to all over the world and "eastern" empire which conquered more and more for larger tax bases and bigger production.
An empire is RARELY under complete control of an -individual-. So it is not likely that a militiary force of an empier would be mobilzied just because a leader wants it. There must be interests(or a system of interests) that support this. Thats why you should look into the social-economic relations.

Mongols for instance are a very interesting case. Because they were not involved with production and they kept conquering(and lived on tribute). But it was so short-lived that we cannot be sure to make generalizations on that. Turks were also driven by similar motives(though seizure of trade routes was crucial), but then they simply settled when they conquered a lot of lands with "production" which changed their social relations completely.
-----

In the era of capitalism, the nature of colonialism has also changed significantly, which is the classical imperialism.

By today, it is simply not really possible for a leader to act purely on his "power-mongering" to expand. Like I said, in geo-politics of today, even conquest of a meaningless territory can be contributing to the lever in the international relations. Conquest of Afghanistan can be directly linked to oil prices or expansion of Russian/Chinese/Indian capital as competitors which is in direct interests of a "western" ruling class.



The Anglo saxon positivist notion of economics has no place in Marxism.

Thats easy to say, unfortunately, a lot of Marxist tradition, especially "scientific marxism" carries it along. There is a whole debate among Marxists on these. R.Brenner I believe called it "neo-smithian" Marxists, people such as Wallerstein.
Marxian economics is full of anglo-saxon postivism. I do not think that was Marx's intention, but he created a whole "positive" school in field of economics.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The Anglo saxon positivist notion of economics has no place in Marxism.



Marxian economics is full of anglo-saxon postivism. I do not think that was Marx's intention, but he created a whole "positive" school in field of economics.

What exactly is Anglo-saxon positivist notion of economics? I tried to look it up, but with no avail.


no, I don't think so. First, "imperialism" isn't a thing, it doesn't have means or motives outside of the societies that this phenomena happens.

I would be very glad if you found a minute to answer a couple of these questions. First off, what do you mean exactly when you say the above quoted part? I am yet to fully develop my Marxist worldview.



Second, societies don't function through "great men" in a Marxist view. A leader who has personal ambitions that are not supported by some segment of the ruling class are generally replaced sooner or later. It may seem from the outside that a bush or Putin just makes rash decisions based on some unknown logic... But really it's just that most of us are not invited to take part in the real debates and decisions which happen at the top.

Sure, but it can be that this "great man" makes up a ruling class on his own. Well, not strictly speaking. For instance, reading on the leaks of conversations in Turkey, it seems that Erdogan has everything firmly in his control. He could, theoretically speaking, go for a imperialist adventure even if it isn't in ruling capitalist interest if he could buy them off in other way. The same goes for any other more dictatorial regime. Where am I wrong?



But modern imperialism as I see it, is due to capitalist relations

But that's why I started this thread, I don't really grasp why imperialism is solely due to capitalist relations. What does it even mean?

Furthermore, to all of you - is there any other major leftist texts on imperialism apart from Lenin's Imperialism?

[Dodo]

Erdoğan's power is not independent from a set of social relations. No matter what his individual ambitions would b, it is largely in check by where it gets its power from. So in a sense he is not to bee understood indepndent of the "ideology" of the Anatolian-conservative bourgeouisie.


By Anglo-Saxon positivism, I was referring to Marxism becoming an "economic theory" which we can apply according to its scientific laws rather than it being a "critique" of existing theory along with the social relations it reflects. For instance, "neo-smithian" Marxists were also responsible for creation of third-worldism, an economic development model based on Marxian flavour as if it is a positive science. They suggested within this framework a model called Import-Substitute Industrialization(ISI). Wiki it.

[Rafiq]

Thats easy to say, unfortunately, a lot of Marxist tradition, especially "scientific marxism" carries it along. There is a whole debate among Marxists on these. R.Brenner I believe called it "neo-smithian" Marxists, people such as Wallerstein.
Marxian economics is full of anglo-saxon postivism. I do not think that was Marx's intention, but he created a whole "positive" school in field of economics.

Perhaps I should rephrase myself.

I do agree that Marxian economics does carry positivist connotations, but I think what we see in Kapital is the utilization of that which is conceded to the devil (with regard to positivism), things which are unarguable true. But the logic is distinct in the sense that in the totality of Marx's thought, with regard to economics, all of these "positivist" forms of logic come together and form something which is beyond positivist thought. In explaining the most intimate, elementary and remedial economic concepts, Marx utilizes positivist thought. But in his conception of the totality of capitalism as a whole, this is obviously not the case. Essentially, continental thinking does not do away with some of the underlying reasoning of empiricism or even positivism, it simply regards them as, by themselves, incomplete. Also, Marx's presence in Britain and the influence Anglo-Saxon thinkers had on him required him to take it into account, to take from it which should be taken.

But for the record, and I should have been more clear, what I meant is the modern positivist notion of economics, what we call "economics" as a category among others of equal significance, this is completely opposed to materialism. Economics as simply the superficial behavior of the market, which does not take into account a wide variety of factors, social relations, the state, ideology, and so on. The Marxian notion of 'economics' is materialist, it does not seek to isolate 'economics' as an independent phenomena which should be treated as it's own field, it represents a wider, more crucial understanding of the underlying foundations of life. We should avoid falling into the false dichotomy set forth by neoliberal economists.

[FSL]

So you might have a leader of an imperialist country that wants power just for the sake of it, not because he cares about competitiveness of the industry or whatnot, but because he wants to control other countries politically, just for the sake of it. For that he doesn't *necessarily* need competitive industries, although that helps, but merely huge military resources.

He'd be overthrown, by a coup or by a media offensive, by any means possible.

As others have said, even those "manly man" type of leaders don't actually take rah decisions and they don't just decide wars, especially so that they can wield "more power" themselves. I'm pretty sure that every elected official learns that true power lies in the capitalists that have his phone number.


But I do have an example of what you're saying. In 1974 Greece was governed by a military junta, in fact the most conservative wing in the military. Greece decided to organize a coup in Cyprus overthrowing its leader, Makarios and the result was that Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to "guarantee the safety of the turkish population"

There is a documentary where some us embacy official talks about those days. He mentions how he tried to have a reasonable discussion with the people in charge of Greece only to get back answers like "We're following inthe footsteps of Digenis Akritas (a folk byzantine hero), we'll never give up!" etc

The result was that the military junta that governed Greece from 1967 and against which there was the well-known Polytechnic Uprising which couldn't in the end overthrow it, simply collapsed.

The ruler of the country, whether he is its president or its dictator, is just one man. If that man doesn't have a class supporting him, he won't even get anyone to bring him some coffee.
Look how quickly Yanukovich was discarded in Ukraine when he didn't sign the EU agreement or Papandreou in Greece when he suggested a referendum.
It's a matter of days for any individual that doesn't have the rulling class' support to be thrown out like trash.



Regarding what you said about Erdogan. As corrupt as he may be, he doesn't have enough money to bribe half the rulling class. Yes, he probably gave some money to some people and that's how he keeps them closer but that's how all administrations work, be it legal or illegal. Not all parts of a rulling class have the same political allegiance. Oil companies want a republican president and green energy companies a democrat. But it doesn't mean that it's the president that controls the companies. It's the other way around.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

I point in case - it's not only that population of the U.S. for a long time has been for normalization of relations with Cuba, but that the U.S. businesses have been in favour for that as well for some time. And yet the U.S. refused to normalize them. (Paraphrasing Chomsky)

Why aren't U.S. capitalist-interests reflected in case of Cuba?