[STUDY GROUP] Imperialism discussion, Chapter 7

[Amusing Scrotum]

Chapter 7; IMPERIALISM AS A SPECIAL STAGE OF CAPITALISM (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm#v22zz99h-265-GUESS).

There&#39;s only a few Chapters left now, so it would be nice to get the amount of contributors up to the same level as the discussions on the early Chapters. So, please, if you read this Chapter now, or if you have read it in the past, tell us what you think. Even if you just point out a grammatical error in Lenin&#39;s work, join the discussion. <_<

[Severian]

“From the purely economic point of view,” writes Kautsky, “it is not impossible that capitalism will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism,”[3] i.e., of a superimperialism, of a union of the imperialisms of the whole world and not struggles among them, a phase when wars shall cease under capitalism, a phase of “the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital”.[4]

Lemme just point out that Kautsky&#39;s idea is once again very fashionable, under different names. Negri&#39;s "Empire" is one example.

There&#39;s a version of the "globalisation" idea, which says nation-states are no longer important, that transnational capital divorced from any state is now more important. Another version of the basic "ultra-imperialism" idea.

Ironically, these idea are being circulated at a time when the conflicts between the U.S., France, Germany, etc. - the major centers of finance capital - have become more open than anytime since the beginning of the Cold War.

Now here&#39;s an interesting question:

Kautsky enters into controversy with the German apologist of imperialism and annexations, Cunow, who clumsily and cynically argues that imperialism is present-day capitalism; the development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive; therefore imperialism is progressive; therefore, we should grovel before it and glorify it&#33; This is something like the caricature of the Russian Marxists which the Narodniks drew in 1894-95. They argued: if the Marxists believe that capitalism is inevitable in Russia, that it is progressive, then they ought to open a tavern and begin to implant capitalism&#33; Kautsky’s reply to Cunow is as follows: imperialism is not present-day capitalism; it is only one of the forms of the policy of present-day capitalism. This policy we can and should fight, fight imperialism, annexations, etc.

So if Cunow is right that imperialism is inevitably part of present-day capitalism - as history would seem to indicate he is - is he wrong in his conclusion? Why?

Lenin can&#39;t explicitly state why, since this was written to be legal under tsarist censorship...anyone want to comment on the implication, and/or your own opinion?

[Janus]

Moved to Study groups.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I was just going to bump this, but Janus has already posted in it.

Anyway, I haven&#39;t responded to this yet, because I&#39;ve been a touch busy recently....and, to be honest, this thread wasn&#39;t my highest priority. Anyway, I&#39;ll probably post something tomorrow.

Additionally, given the level of participation at the moment, would anyone object to us just having one thread on the last three Chapters and getting this Study Group finished? That question is directed mainly at Severian.

Really, next time, I think we&#39;ll need to pick a shorter work; because it&#39;s slightly annoying that the seven people who voted for this work, haven&#39;t really bothered participating lately.

[Janus]

Anyway, I haven&#39;t responded to this yet, because I&#39;ve been a touch busy recently
Yeah, same here. I only had spare time over the summer. :(


because it&#39;s slightly annoying that the seven people who voted for this work, haven&#39;t really bothered participating lately
Yeah, I gotta agree with you there. I went through all that trouble to add it to list at the last minute when it should&#39;ve been left out.

Anyways, anyone have ideas on when we should start the next book and maximize the amount of participation?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Amusing [email protected] 9 2006, 05:46 AM
Additionally, given the level of participation at the moment, would anyone object to us just having one thread on the last three Chapters and getting this Study Group finished? That question is directed mainly at Severian.
I don&#39;t have a problem with that.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2006 08:35 pm
There&#39;s a version of the "globalisation" idea, which says nation-states are no longer important, that transnational capital divorced from any state is now more important. Another version of the basic "ultra-imperialism" idea.

I don&#39;t know if I agree with the ultra-imperialism concept, seeing how capital needs a base of operations, and forces regulated by governments behind it.
The only thing that legitimizes contracts is the size and quality of force behind it.

This stage also suggests the end of small nationalist states, when theres nothing stopping them from existing-- they can borrow finances, but they will inevitably be gobbled up unless they get their hand in the redistribution fast enough. So they either become giants or just as soon as they came, as soon as they go.


Lenin can&#39;t explicitly state why, since this was written to be legal under tsarist censorship...anyone want to comment on the implication, and/or your own opinion?
I thought Lenin was arguing that he was right, and that he was trying to discredit Kautsky more by saying Cunow who is this Social-Liberal is more correct than Kautsky who is this so-called Marxist.

By the way, everyone, sorry I&#39;m so late in this discussion, I&#39;ve been having a hardtime finding the time to read this book, I even just read this chapter today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don&#39;t know if my recent thread in the "Theory" forum on monopoly capitalism and the shrinking middle class was posted in the wrong forum, but what about my signature? Personally, I don&#39;t like using the term "imperialism" anymore, because it&#39;s so over-used. The usage of "monopoly capitalism," on the other hand, reveals as much of the truth as Mussolini&#39;s fascism = corporatism quote.



Sites to ponder:

http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol8.1/cerni.html
http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/...laropoulos.html (http://theoryandscience.icaap.org/content/vol8.1/sakellaropoulos.html)
http://www.monthlyreview.org/1004pms2.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0102jbf.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0106jbf2.htm



As for the "ultra-imperialism" question, what about the European Union (and relations between its big three)? Does that serve to further Kautsky&#39;s argument (cooperation of imperialisms), or Lenin&#39;s (the fifth criteria of political division)?