Capitalism and imperialism

[Karl Marx's Camel]

At what point did capitalism become imperialistic?

And at what point did capitalism cease to be progressive?

[JazzRemington]

I think it depends on the nation. Certain countries will benefit very little or not at all from capitalist development (such as countries like the US or Europe). Countries that are very under developed will most likely benefit from capitalist development because investment from businesses will lead to infrastructure improvements, and what have you.

But capitalism hasn't STOPPED being imperialist. It's only hidden it in the form of foreign investment.

[Dewolfemann]

I think I would actually take the opposite view JazzRemington, Capitalism was actually the most progressive in Europe because it helped do away with systems of feudal bondage. In the 'third world' today I don't believe capitalism will lead to development, it is in the interests of the imperialist world to keep these countries underdeveloped as a cheap source of labour.

Page 64 onward of this document deals with how capitalism developed into imperialism (http://www.activistsguide.com/activistsguide%20Read%20and%20Share.pdf)

[JazzRemington]

No, capitalism was progressive. I mean that in terms of increasing development, countries that are already well developed because of capitalism will benefit little from it.

Under developed countries that have been allowed to develop with the aid of capitalism have developed at an alarming rate. FOr instance, when China began to allow certain areas of the country to be open to foreign investment, they began to develop at a fast rate. It is the same thing with parts of India and certain parts of Africa (though as a whole these two countries are still very much under developed).

Certainly, these countries are a source of cheap labor. For instance, those areas of China that developed because of foreign investment have a daily wage of about $0.50, in current US dollars. But the point is that for a third-world country to be used as cheap labor, some degree of infrastructure development must take place so that 1) the factories and offices can be utilized by the cheap labor, 2) roads and transportation must be developed to facilitate movement of goods and services, and 3) some sort of education has to be developed to train the workers.

[shadowed by the secret police]

Very interesting & important question, NWOG.
Well, I'm no scholar but my feeling is that capitalism stopped being progressive when it started to create financial crises which were not resolved in the interest of the majority of the toilers but in the interest of the bourgeoisie. It began to be imperialist about the same time it started to create financial crises. The capitalists saw that their system was causing widespread discontent at home so they exported a lot of the bad capitalism (but not all of it) abroad to exploit foreign Third World workers and bring back super profits to give to some of the workers at home---- the labor aristocracy

[Whitten]

Capitalism WAS progressive, in Europe and North America, Austrailia and a few other luck places. It ceased being progressive once it became imperialist. The countries where the real proletariat are being dominated by capitalism arnt developing, as capitalism in the form of Imperialism doesnt develop national infrastructure or economy.

[Tekun]

Im gonna tackle the first question, seeing as how everyone is responding to the second

Capitalism became imperialistic towards the end of the 19th century, and it had fully developed by the end of WW1
Colonialism is far older, however, colonialism differs with imperialism in that economics and the global market do not play a significant role

With the emergence of dominant global monopolies and finance, imperialism was undertaken in order to divide the world among the richest and most influential capitalist powers
In less developed countries, cheap labor was abundant and the natural resources of that region were more or less untouched, which made these regions of the world lucrative production zones for the bourgeoisie

In addition, in most developed capitalist countries (US, UK, and Western Europe) at the beginning of the 20th century, workers consciousness and unions began to impede the freedom that capitalists had to exploit the working class
Thus, the capitalists moved their zones of operation to less developed countries where labor laws and protection for workers were either absent or insignificant

[Enragé]

Imperialism existed before (actual) capitalism in the form of colonialism.
Capitalism just took over, and now colonies are not anymore under the direct control of another nation, but they are increasingly economically subverted due to big companies moving in and influencing local governments. When the people in those countries rise up against that influence, or when the government harms the interests of those companies to a certain degree, imperialist nations step in to "solve" the problem; hence iraq.

just my 2 cents.

[BreadBros]

To add onto what NKOS has somewhat pointed at, colonialism has always been intertwined with capitalism and thereby imperialism. Remember, much of the industrialization and modernization that occured in Europe during the 19th and 20th centuries was financed through the exploitation of oppressed nations abroad. Much of the vast sums of capital that were required to fund the construction of new industrial production techniques were taken from abroad, including the appropriation of silver from South and Central America and the outright looting of the S. Asian subcontinent.

One of the major developments that has to be explored more in the future is the effect of the dislocation of production and consumption centers. The fact that in the past 30-40 years most of the industrial production has been moved to the third world while the first world economies have increasingly relied on financing and consumption to sustain themselves has probably been the #1 reason for the fading of the American labor movement as a progressive force.

[RGacky3]

What do you mean by progressive? If you mean better for everyone, more ethical, it never was. If you mean technologically progressive, or wealth wise, it still is.