Is Imperialism Over? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is Imperialism Over?

Leo

6th July 2006, 14:31

I've been reading Antonio Negri's sensetional book called 'Empire'. Some of his ideas are quite interesting so I decided to open a thread on imperialism and the concept of the empire.

What Negri basically says in his book about this topic is that Imperialism is finally over, it was succesful and it fulfilled its purpose which was the global empire of capital that does not recognize any boundaries.

There is no place on Earth that is not dominated by capital. Big capitalist countries such as US and European countries are the leading and dominant states that don't actually need imperialism in the way we know it. Exploitation of resources and labor is the norm, not only for the exploiters but also for the exploitees. Then there is the new-imperialism of rising second world countries which does conflict with the interests of big capitalist nation states, but the question here is this: would that conflict matter for the global empire of capital or is the empire and done with imperialism?

Marion

6th July 2006, 15:31

Very interesting topic for dicussion. To be honest, Empire is such a difficult and philosophical book (and I last ventured into it a good while ago and found it very hard to understand) that I'm very much open to correction in my views...

Is worth pointing out that there's been some who have said the authors have back-tracked from their original view recently by creating a greater role for individual nation-states within "Empire", with Negri and Hardt being more careful now to state that they see Empire as an existing tendency. However, there are bits in Empire anyway that refer to the US having an important place in Empire but just not being the main source of power so I don't think they are saying the nation-state is totally irrelevent, just that it's role is integrated into Empire and it makes sense to think of a smooth surface of power rather than there being any one or multiple nexuses of it.

Personally, I like the idea that because of Empire there is, strictly speaking, no outside to capital - we are all involved in the capital relationship (this is often for autonomists a point of departure for thinking about "flight" from capital, primarily in terms of refusal of power, following from the likes of Virno). I also like the fact that this moves us away from the traditional search for a "revolutionary subject" (e.g. is it peasants or the industrial working class), but suggests that we can all strike back against capital in a myriad of unexpected ways at unexpected times. What then becomes important is the circulation of these struggles.

Saying that, I do think that there are questions about what they write. Why do N+H think we have Empire now when it wasn't around at the end of the 19th Century (when by many measures globalisation was more advanced than it is now)? Has it always made sense to talk of Empire rather than distinct phases in it? Is Empire really as smooth as it sometimes seems?

If you haven't already, I'd advise reading Multitudes by the same authors as it clarifies a number of the issues in Empire, mainly as it is less based upon philosophy and more on practical examples. It doesn't take a large dictionary and 20 attempts to understand half of it either.

h&s

6th July 2006, 16:58

Quick point: With the 'Peak Oil' crisis and environmental catastrophe ever loomng on the horizon resources are going to be more and more scarce and more fought over. I really don't think imperialism has ended, and its likely to increase.

somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback

6th July 2006, 17:28

Originally posted by h&[email protected] 6 2006, 02:59 PM
Quick point: With the 'Peak Oil' crisis and environmental catastrophe ever loomng on the horizon resources are going to be more and more scarce and more fought over. I really don't think imperialism has ended, and its likely to increase.
I agree that it will/would increase if we do not fight its uprise. In the future more and more resources will be needed for an evergrowing world population. As long as, amongst others, the US refuse to seriously invest in alternative energy-making as opposed to using non-renewable energy sources such as oil, there will be a growing need for the latter. This will most likely create a "need", if you can so call it, for imperialism in order to gain those resources that are needed so hard. Look at Iraq, for example: It might not only be a "war for oil", but who believes oil had nothing to do with it? If they are crazy enough to start a war with in mind the capturing of oil resources, who knows what might happen if the world starts to run out!

Hit The North

6th July 2006, 17:29

Severian

6th July 2006, 17:58

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 6 2006, 05:32 AM
What Negri basically says in his book about this topic is that Imperialism is finally over, it was succesful and it fulfilled its purpose which was the global empire of capital that does not recognize any boundaries.
That's a complete misread of the "purpose" of imperialism as well as the current situation.

Capital by its nature does cross all national boundaries. But at the same time its totally tied up with the existence of those boundaries, historically and politically. That's one of its main contradictions, which produces all kinds of explosions.

The modern nation-state arose with capital and capital can't dispense with it. For the organization of its armed forces among other things. Both for the suppression of working people and for the competition among nationally based chunks of capital.

That rivalry has if anything increased: U.S. against European, the various European states against each other, etc. And that rivalry was always the "purpose" of imperialism in the sense Lenin used the word.....

rouchambeau

6th July 2006, 17:59

I think it would be very hard to prove that imperialism is over and done with for good. However, assuming that free-trade is upheld and there are no major economic crises (sp?) I think the author may be correct.

Marion

6th July 2006, 18:25

Yeah, to an extent the war against Iraq was problematic for Negri's thesis. International Socialism claimed (in a fairly patchy article) that on the one hand N+H said the war against Iraq was an attempted "coup" against Empire while on the other they claimed it fitted into their existing theories. Actually these two views were not necessarily contradictory as, in Multitudes, the main argument (if I remember correctly) was that they did attempt a coup but the fact it has largely failed shows that imperialism is, today, a bankrupt approach. However, I think its fair to say that they had to reassess their model in the wake of events and began to increasingly stress that Empire was a tendency rather than a fully existing state of affairs.

There is an article by Negri from 2002 (http://www.generation-online.org/t/negriwar.htm) for example that appears to be arguing that the US was exercising the main military force but that "in Empire monarchy cannot survive unless it is in agreement with the global aristocracy" - in other words the US cannot use its military power in a way that capitalist powers disagree with (hence why no major power explicitly lined up against the US war plans). However, the discussions around the war between major powers were very much to do with the relative position of America as opposed to Europe within Empire. In other words, there are disagreements and positions for different viewpoints among blocs within Empire. If this is right, though, to what extent was the war against Iraq a "coup" against Empire or a power-play for position within Empire?

To be honest, I'm very much thinking on my feet on this one so I may be totally wrong - if Leo or anyone has a better interpretation or information I'll find it very useful as I think its an important issue. I'll have to look at my copy of Multitudes soon to (try to) figure out exactly what they argued on this topic, but certainly its not easy to pin down exactly what they think.

Marion

6th July 2006, 18:40

Originally posted by Severian+Jul 6 2006, 02:59 PM--> (Severian @ Jul 6 2006, 02:59 PM)
Leo [email protected] 6 2006, 05:32 AM
What Negri basically says in his book about this topic is that Imperialism is finally over, it was succesful and it fulfilled its purpose which was the global empire of capital that does not recognize any boundaries.
The modern nation-state arose with capital and capital can't dispense with it. For the organization of its armed forces among other things. Both for the suppression of working people and for the competition among nationally based chunks of capital.
[/b]
Would totally agree that the modern nation-state generally arose with capital. However, am not so sure at all that capital couldn't dispense with it - I think Capital is pretty dynamic (largely due to the activity of the working-class more than anything else, but that's a different discussion!). In fact, removing quite a lot of the strictures of the nation-state is an obsession for neo-liberals. Reading something like The Economist makes clear how in favour (theoretically at least) they are of increased immigration. Basically a lot of them see national borders as getting in the way of making more money and introducing things like tarrifs that should be removed.

You're right that there are issues about armed forces and competition, but I'm not sure why that necessitates the nation-state. For example, competition already exists between regions within nation-states and between regions made out of nation-states.

Severian

6th July 2006, 19:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 09:26 AM
There is an article by Negri from 2002 (http://www.generation-online.org/t/negriwar.htm) for example that appears to be arguing that the US was exercising the main military force but that "in Empire monarchy cannot survive unless it is in agreement with the global aristocracy" - in other words the US cannot use its military power in a way that capitalist powers disagree with (hence why no major power explicitly lined up against the US war plans).
Well, they have it exactly backward then. In reality, the other capitalist powers cannot use [their] military power in a way that [the U.S.] disagree with."

Obviously the U.S. did use its military power in a way the others disagreed with. A way that struck at their interests, even, overthrowing a French client regime and taking direct control of Iraq's oil reserves - which mostly go to supply Washington's economic rivals.

Even participants in the war - like Australia - lost out, as U.S. wheat imports replaced Australian wheat imports to Iraq.

There've also been proxy wars between France and the U.S. in Africa. The '94 Rwanda genocide, for example, was fueled in part by the war between a French-backed government and the U.S.-backed rebels.

The reason every other imperialist power had to go along with the Iraq war, reluctantly or otherwise? Because they were too weak to go against U.S. "hyperpower".

"Hyperpower" is Chirac's word, and it's an accurate one. No power in history has had the degree of advantage over all rivals that the U.S. has. Even the Roman Empire at its height had a credible rival, Persia. The U.S., in contrast, is in an arms race with itself.

***

I might point out that none of this nonsense is new. Before and even during WWI, this idea was promoted as "inter-imperialism" or "ultra-imperialism." If you read Lenin's "Imperialism", he argues against Kautsky's version. You might think WWI would have been sufficient refutation.

There's a statement attributed to Goethe, that "All truly wise thoughts have been thoughts already thousands of times." Originality is rare....I could add that most kinds of nonsense have been thought already millions of times.

***

"You're right that there are issues about armed forces and competition, but I'm not sure why that necessitates the nation-state."

What would the armed forces be based on, then? The Exxon Army? "My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my employer"?

Leo

6th July 2006, 19:42

Is worth pointing out that there's been some who have said the authors have back-tracked from their original view recently by creating a greater role for individual nation-states within "Empire", with Negri and Hardt being more careful now to state that they see Empire as an existing tendency. However, there are bits in Empire anyway that refer to the US having an important place in Empire but just not being the main source of power so I don't think they are saying the nation-state is totally irrelevent, just that it's role is integrated into Empire and it makes sense to think of a smooth surface of power rather than there being any one or multiple nexuses of it.

Nation states are of course not irrelevant, but they are mere tools of the global empire of capital. They are required by capital to protect the Empire, they are like a Royal Guard. The very concept of a nation state is bound to serve the Empire.

Personally, I like the idea that because of Empire there is, strictly speaking, no outside to capital - we are all involved in the capital relationship (this is often for autonomists a point of departure for thinking about "flight" from capital, primarily in terms of refusal of power, following from the likes of Virno). I also like the fact that this moves us away from the traditional search for a "revolutionary subject" (e.g. is it peasants or the industrial working class), but suggests that we can all strike back against capital in a myriad of unexpected ways at unexpected times. What then becomes important is the circulation of these struggles.

Yes, that is an interesting observation. Capital is damaging by itself to any human being, and this damage actually allows any individual to develop a proletarian class consciousnes but still the individual has to be proletarian to be actually damaging because no matter how conscious someone who is not proletarian is, they will be siding with capital unless they actively do something to change themselves.

Saying that, I do think that there are questions about what they write. Why do N+H think we have Empire now when it wasn't around at the end of the 19th Century (when by many measures globalisation was more advanced than it is now)? Has it always made sense to talk of Empire rather than distinct phases in it? Is Empire really as smooth as it sometimes seems?

In the 19th century, capital was not as globally dominant as it is nowdays. Its dominance was still developing. According to Negri and Hardt, the purpose of imperialism was to make that dominance reach its peak. The corporate ownership of the modes of production, the exploitation of the third world, imperialist wars etc. were done for imperialism, they were not imperialism.

If you haven't already, I'd advise reading Multitudes by the same authors as it clarifies a number of the issues in Empire, mainly as it is less based upon philosophy and more on practical examples. It doesn't take a large dictionary and 20 attempts to understand half of it either.

Multitudes is the next book I will be reading.

With the 'Peak Oil' crisis and environmental catastrophe ever loomng on the horizon resources are going to be more and more scarce and more fought over. I really don't think imperialism has ended, and its likely to increase..

Hmm, speculative... I actually don't think imperialism is the best way to deal with problems such as 'Peak Oil' and environmenal catasthrope, considering that imperialism/capitalism is the sole reason of any damage done to nature. Even cappies are not that stupid, if we (proletarians) die, they won't live long.

Look at Iraq, for example: It might not only be a "war for oil", but who believes oil had nothing to do with it?

There is an article by Negri from 2002 (http://www.generation-online.org/t/negriwar.htm) for example that appears to be arguing that the US was exercising the main military force but that "in Empire monarchy cannot survive unless it is in agreement with the global aristocracy" - in other words the US cannot use its military power in a way that capitalist powers disagree with (hence why no major power explicitly lined up against the US war plans). However, the discussions around the war between major powers were very much to do with the relative position of America as opposed to Europe within Empire. In other words, there are disagreements and positions for different viewpoints among blocs within Empire. If this is right, though, to what extent was the war against Iraq a "coup" against Empire or a power-play for position within Empire?

Oil is how the invaders got the support of the capital for the war. After all just like the economy of big oil corporations, economy of nation-states also needs oil. US is big dog of the Royal Guard who enjoys biting anyone it dislikes, that's how US makes sure no one questions their authority, yet to bite someone, they need the approval of the international capital.

The capitalists of course doesn't need iraqi oil, they have all the oil in the world but they are willing to allow the top dog of the Royal Guard of the Empire kill millions of children just to prove itself, as long as the top dog gives what it gets from the murders it commits. That's how disgusting they are...

Capital by its nature does cross all national boundaries. But at the same time its totally tied up with the existence of those boundaries, historically and politically. That's one of its main contradictions, which produces all kinds of explosions.

The modern nation-state arose with capital and capital can't dispense with it. For the organization of its armed forces among other things. Both for the suppression of working people and for the competition among nationally based chunks of capital.

True till this point but;

That rivalry has if anything increased: U.S. against European, the various European states against each other, etc. And that rivalry was always the "purpose" of imperialism in the sense Lenin used the word.....

The thing is, those rivalries are subjective and unimportant. Most definately they are not the purpose of imperialism, they are results of it. No matter how much two capitalists or nation-states hate each other, they will always act together against the proletariat, historically and materially they will always have to. That is the very nature of their existance. A truly weak analysis of Imperialism by Lenin, not really surprising :D

Rawthentic

6th July 2006, 20:05

Imperialism has of course not ended. Just because capital has transcended all national borders around the world, does not mean that imperialist states will stop sucking the blood out of those countries, it will continue. Free trade deals around the world will be signed, which allow even lower tarrifs, faster commodities, more poverty, and more wars. This is all part of imperialism and will not end until capitalism does. Remember, imperialism and the ability of imperialist states to exploit 3rd world states for profit is the life-blood of the capitalist system.

Leo

6th July 2006, 20:55

Imperialism has of course not ended. Just because capital has transcended all national borders around the world, does not mean that imperialist states will stop sucking the blood out of those countries, it will continue.

It is not just the imperialist states, capitalists are the ones who suck most of their blood.

Free trade deals around the world will be signed, which allow even lower tarrifs, faster commodities, more poverty, and more wars. This is all part of imperialism and will not end until capitalism does. Remember, imperialism and the ability of imperialist states to exploit 3rd world states for profit is the life-blood of the capitalist system.

As I said it is the captalists who exploit the third world more than the imperial nation states. That exploitation is the norm of the empire. But of course things such as exploitation, wars, suffering; products of imperialism, will of course continue to exist, and in a way capitalism is imperialism and those products will cease to exist only when capital collapses, but the arguement that says imperialism, or at least the imperialist period is over bases itself on the fact that the imperialism finally obtained a global empire for capital.

Severian

6th July 2006, 22:06

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 6 2006, 10:43 AM
The thing is, those rivalries are subjective and unimportant.
Unimportant? Tell it to the people who died in both World Wars - or for that matter the people presently dying as a result of the proxy wars between U.S. and French capital in Africa (and to a degree Iraq.)

Subjective? No, they have an objective interest in expanding their share of the world market at the expense of their rivals.

Most definately they are not the purpose of imperialism, they are results of it. No matter how much two capitalists or nation-states hate each other, they will always act together against the proletariat, historically and materially they will always have to.

Generally true with exceptions (inter-imperialist rivalry definitely did interfere with uniting to crush the USSR. Allied aid to the USSR against Germany before Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of Rapallo, and of course WWII.) But that doesn't make their rivalries unreal or unimportant. On the contrary, inter-imperialist rivalry is a major producer of crises and revolutionary situations.

And at the present moment, their fear of "communism" is not a major factor restraining their rivalries. That's why conflict between the U.S. and West European powers has ramped up since the collapse of the USSR.

Whether that's an entirely accurate perception by the capitalists is another question, but the truth is that fear of proletarian revolution does not greatly restrain them from pursuing their rivalries today.

Even U.S.-Canadian rivalry has increased. Washington slapped Canada with softwood tariffs and a ban on beef imports, to protect U.S. businesses and partly as retaliation for Ottowa's verbal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Recently, the softwood dispute was settled....on Washington's terms.

The debate on this within the Canadian ruling class is illuminating. The Toronto Star (http://www.baylor.edu/pr/bitn/news.php?action=story&story=36968) writes "The North American Free Trade Agreement is effectively dead.....In some ways, it is as if NAFTA never lived......The U.S. adheres to trade deals only when it chooses to."

But of course the Canadian ruling class ultimately has no alternative but to bend to Washington's dictates. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/view/?document_id=497&area_id=1) argues for acceptance...admits "Neither the WTO nor the NAFTA can trump the domestic politics of the United States, but they have given Canada’s negotiating position more weight."

It's also significant for its open acknowledgement that these supposedly "globalizing" "free trade" deals are in fact aimed at increasing competitiveness relative to rival capitalists elsewhere. "Customs duties have fallen around the world since the NAFTA was signed. Having a free trade zone by itself therefore is less of a competitive advantage than it used to be."

The frank profiteering language of big business is often much more illuminating than whatever idea is currently fashionable on the middle-class left.

Leo

6th July 2006, 23:01

Unimportant? Tell it to the people who died in both World Wars - or for that matter the people presently dying as a result of the proxy wars between U.S. and French capital in Africa (and to a degree Iraq.)

First of all, I am not talking about World Wars, Imperialism created the concept of an Empire with globalism. Secondly, it is very important for me, it is not important for them. Please think before taking every cheap shot you can.

Subjective? No, they have an objective interest in expanding their share of the world market at the expense of their rivals.

Have you never heard of anything called classes, or maybe class interests? They are all serving the Capitalist classes, objectively they are all the same, no matter who wins among them, workers will always lose.

Generally true with exceptions (inter-imperialist rivalry definitely did interfere with uniting to crush the USSR. Allied aid to the USSR against Germany before Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of Rapallo, and of course WWII.) But that doesn't make their rivalries unreal or unimportant. On the contrary, inter-imperialist rivalry is a major producer of crises and revolutionary situations.

It did create revolutionary situations in the past but it also prevented those revolutionary situations from developing in a healthy way. However, as I said, when I am talking about things under the global dominance of capital, I am reffering to the post cold war period.

And at the present moment, their fear of "communism" is not a major factor restraining their rivalries. That's why conflict between the U.S. and West European powers has ramped up since the collapse of the USSR.

Whether that's an entirely accurate perception by the capitalists is another question, but the truth is that fear of proletarian revolution does not greatly restrain them from pursuing their rivalries today.

Well actually the assumption that imperialist powers united to prevent communism or a proletarian revolution is a myth. A truly 'allied' nation state rarely can do anything to stop a proletarian revolution going on. For example during the proletarian revolution in France in May 68 even US couldn't do anything to stop it. The revolution was stopped by the USSR, but they had a Trojan Horse among the French proetariat called French (So-Called) Communist Party. Imperialist nation-states allied to attack, not to defend themselves, USSR was always trying to defend itself and the French revolution of 68 shows that they were objectively an ally of imperialism against the international proletariat, that theirs was actually an inter-capitalist rivalry, and we both know that bueraucrats from USSR and China finally decided to join the forces of capital.

Even U.S.-Canadian rivalry has increased. Washington slapped Canada with softwood tariffs and a ban on beef imports, to protect U.S. businesses and partly as retaliation for Ottowa's verbal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Recently, the softwood dispute was settled....on Washington's terms.

The debate on this within the Canadian ruling class is illuminating. The Toronto Star writes "The North American Free Trade Agreement is effectively dead.....In some ways, it is as if NAFTA never lived......The U.S. adheres to trade deals only when it chooses to."

But of course the Canadian ruling class ultimately has no alternative but to bend to Washington's dictates. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives argues for acceptance...admits "Neither the WTO nor the NAFTA can trump the domestic politics of the United States, but they have given Canada’s negotiating position more weight."

It's also significant for its open acknowledgement that these supposedly "globalizing" "free trade" deals are in fact aimed at increasing competitiveness relative to rival capitalists elsewhere. "Customs duties have fallen around the world since the NAFTA was signed. Having a free trade zone by itself therefore is less of a competitive advantage than it used to be."

The frank profiteering language of big business is often much more illuminating than whatever idea is currently fashionable on the middle-class left.

Interesting news on Canada, thanks for sharing that... I don't think there is much debate going on the existance of the Empire, after all capital is globally dominant, it mostly does not know any real boundaries. Trade might be slowing down within boundaries for some reasons, but currency excange does not. However, the 'Royal Guard', or Global Aristocracy as Negri puts it, still has and will always have inner conflicts. But If the interests of capitalists are even threathened, just a slap in the hand will be enough to put the royal guard back in line. Actually I suspect the recent change in the members of the Canadian ruling elite (the election of Harper) might be the price old canadian rulers paid for this event...

RedJacobin

7th July 2006, 04:48

http://www.monthlyreview.org/1105amin.htm

Severian

7th July 2006, 11:18

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 6 2006, 02:02 PM
But If the interests of capitalists are even threathened, just a slap in the hand will be enough to put the royal guard back in line. Actually I suspect the recent change in the members of the Canadian ruling elite (the election of Harper) might be the price old canadian rulers paid for this event...
Negri was described as arguing the opposite earlier.
"in Empire monarchy cannot survive unless it is in agreement with the global aristocracy" - in other words the US cannot use its military power in a way that capitalist powers disagree with (hence why no major power explicitly lined up against the US war plans).

So Negri's theory predicts that the U.S. cannot defy the other capitalist powers. But when dealing with a concrete example you have to say the other capitalist powers cannot defy the U.S.

The theory of ultra-imperialism - in Negri's, Kautsky's or any other version - requires the former. It requires that capitalism be founded on a cooperation and harmony within the capitalist class, not on competition. It requires that each capitalist selflessly pursue the interests of the global capitalist system, not their own profit and power.

But if the latter is true - if the other capitalist powers are constantly clashing with Washington, and backing down only because of Washington's overwhelming power - then more explosions are inevitable.

I could point out 3 or 4 other substantial self-contradictions in your latest post, but that would be tedious and take us away from the core of the issue.

I don't think there is much debate going on the existance of the Empire

if that (assuming Negri's meaning of "the Empire") 's generally accepted without debate, it just illustrates the power of groupthink within lefty academia.

Leo

7th July 2006, 12:06

Negri was described as arguing the opposite earlier.
"in Empire monarchy cannot survive unless it is in agreement with the global aristocracy" - in other words the US cannot use its military power in a way that capitalist powers disagree with (hence why no major power explicitly lined up against the US war plans).

So Negri's theory predicts that the U.S. cannot defy the other capitalist powers. But when dealing with a concrete example you have to say the other capitalist powers cannot defy the U.S.

Negri is a little confused with his metaphors here... The monarchy is not the US, it is capitalists, and US is the top dog of the global aristocracy or what I call Royal Guard. This said, US cannot use its military power in a way that capitalist powers disagree with, they'd pull the plug.

In the Canadian example we saw that capitalists backed US or maybe the consequences of that event did not appear yet.

It requires that capitalism be founded on a cooperation and harmony within the capitalist class, not on competition. It requires that each capitalist selflessly pursue the interests of the global capitalist system, not their own profit and power.

Inter-capitalist rivalries are irrelevant to class struggle, and everything that is an important factor in history has to be relevant to class struggle. No matter how badly two capitalist hates each other, they would always support each other in the most important situations, against their common enemy, the proletarian class, this is why two capitalists can be rivals but never enemies.

But if the latter is true - if the other capitalist powers are constantly clashing with Washington, and backing down only because of Washington's overwhelming power - then more explosions are inevitable.

Quite frankly this doesn't even make sense, there is no real conflict of interests between capitalists and the US government. What Marx wrote back in the day, that "State is the tool of the ruling class" is still true. The very interests of the state requires it to be nothing but a blind follower of the interests of capital.

if that (assuming Negri's meaning of "the Empire") 's generally accepted without debate, it just illustrates the power of groupthink within lefty academia.

It doesn't have to be Negri's empire, but global and boundless dominance of capital is real.

Janus

8th July 2006, 03:50

Leo

8th July 2006, 12:23

So is Negri stating that all forms of imperialism are over or that it has just become largely static?

I would think that the old form of imperialism and colonialism has given way to the new neoimperialism in which expansion through global markets has replaced military conquests. As far as I can see, this process still seems to be going on as more markets and countries are opening up.

This is a good analysis. However, the empire of capital is the global dominance of capital, it does not mean that there are market 'everywhere', it is that there can be markets everywhere (and wherever needed).

According to Negri, the end of imperialism is purely theoretical, and almost all evils that were products of imperialism will continue for one reason or the other, mostly for the maintanence of the Empire. Negri thinks we can say that imperialism is over because capital is globally dominant, that imperialism fulfilled its purpose as a term by creating that dominance.

Janus

10th July 2006, 09:19

there are market 'everywhere', it is that there can be markets everywhere (and wherever needed).
Yes, and now it is the corporations that are trying to grab as many markets as they can. This is what I was talking about in terms of neo-colonialism.

Negri thinks we can say that imperialism is over because capital is globally dominant, that imperialism fulfilled its purpose as a term by creating that dominance.
So basically, globalization? But certain practices similar to imperialism still exist in order to maintain that dominance and maintain the dominance of certain corporations.

Leo

10th July 2006, 11:35

Yes, and now it is the corporations that are trying to grab as many markets as they can. This is what I was talking about in terms of neo-colonialism.

But when we look from the class perspective, it seems certain that the capitalist class will grab all the markets and it doesn't matter which capitalist it is who grabs the most.

So basically, globalization? But certain practices similar to imperialism still exist in order to maintain that dominance and maintain the dominance of certain corporations.

Yes, almost all products of imperialism, wars, oppression etc. still exist for the maintanance of the global dominance of capital.

Janus

10th July 2006, 20:16

But when we look from the class perspective, it seems certain that the capitalist class will grab all the markets and it doesn't matter which capitalist it is who grabs the most.
Yeah, I definitely agree. It doesn't matter what nationality or ethnicity our oppressor are as long as they are oppressing us.

But what I meant to say is that unlike the old imperialism, it is now corporations that are battling it out for empire.