Imperialism and the Nation-state.

[Monty Cantsin]

Lenin’s account of imperialism was largely based on a synthesis of two prior publications; Hobson’s Imperialism (1902) and Hilferding’s Finance Capital (1910). Concurrent with a critique of the rival conceptualization put forward by Karl Kautsky and his notion of “ultra-imperialism”. According to Lenin Imperialism is a stage in the development of capitalism; were increasing concentration of capital has lead to the unification of bank and industrial capital through a network of financial oligarchies and cartels. Monopolies replace free competition between capitalist and there is a process of further centralisation and combination of divergent operations in the production process into the one organisation. The different cartels then compete in the monopolising of foreign and less developed markets. This is characterised as Monopoly Capitalism, were the largest capitalist powers have divided the world between themselves and export of capital as opposed to mere commodities became central to economic re-production. The exploitation of less developed nations by imperialist nations lead to what Lenin called “Capitalist parasitism”, allowing the national bourgeoisie to placate their own local proletariat with concessions and higher standards of living. These dynamics are not stable according to Lenin; conflict between national-bourgeoisie over the re-division of markets and territories is intra-imperialist conflict, a likely outcome because the contradictions of capital are not overcome by the development of imperialism.

Therefore, from this perspective the ostensive moves towards the development of supra-national institutions, regional integrations and decline in imperialist conflict represent a ‘cold’ period in the conflict rather then actual moves towards leveling out conflict between nationally based capitalists.

Others though such as Negri and Hardt put forward the thesis that during the 20th century the traditional notion of ‘imperialism’ became inadequate in explaining the organization of global capitalism. Imperial sovereignty based in the nation-state, as theorised by the authors, has declined and a new form of sovereignty and economic organization is emerging which they term “Empire”. “Empire” is not bound and based in the nation-state; “empire” transcends this unit of political organisation, as a supra-national judicial structure and defuse network of power-relations, “empire” is a truly world-system. The authors thus conceive of the 20th century as a period of transition from imperialism to “empire”.

The central nexus of concern, the nation-state. is the concept of imperialism really relevant today? are we seeing its decline? the development of a trans-national capitalist class? what do you think?

[BobKKKindle$]

No. Like an scientific hypothesis, Negri's position can be rebutted empirically. The most important feature of Lenin's theory of Imperialism is his recognition of conflict between developed capitalist states as an ultimate consequence of imperial expansion. Although this conflict has not yet assumed the form of war between developed nations, inter-imperial conflict still exists in the form of diplomatic disputes which affirms the importance of the nation-state. If, in the terminology of dependency theory, the core nations had reconciled their different interests to form a single political bloc with no internal disagreement, then these diplomatic conflicts would not exist. The 'diplomatic conflicts' of which I speak are best exemplified by the Iraq war. Prior to the war, relations between France and the United States underwent a sudden deterioration as the French government had signed important trade and oil-production agreements with the Saddam regime and thus the American invasion posed a threat to the economic interests of French finance-capital.

Global Policy Forum, January 21 2003:

For 30 years, French business has enjoyed a close relationship with Iraq. Baghdad has a French phone system, French cars are on the streets, and France's oil giant TotalFinaElf SA (TOT) has been working hard to get access to Iraq's massive oil reserves. But with a U.S.-led coalition threatening to march into Baghdad to topple President Saddam Hussein, France Inc. is worried that the relationship may be shattered - and that the big contracts to rebuild Iraq may instead go to U.S. rivals.

"Postwar Kuwait, where U.S. companies got most contracts, doesn't bode well for the presence of French companies in Iraq," said Pierre Girard-Hautbout, an adviser at OFDIC, a French business go-between active in Iraq. His comments referred to the aftermath of the Gulf War.

(http://globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq///attack/2003/0121incdeal.htm)

It is possible although still unclear whether the same inter-imperial dynamics, between China/Russia and the dominant group of western democracies exists in the Iranian nuclear crisis. What is clear, however, from the example I have given above, is that Inter-Imperial conflict is still a defining characteristic of Imperialism.

Good thread btw.

[p.m.a.]

No. Like an scientific hypothesis, Negri's position can be rebutted empirically.

Wow, and you continued to rebut it so well, by not even addressing it further. Negri and Hardt's analysis of the transition of capital in the 21st century is one of the most important contributions to contemporary Marxist theory. It fits perfectly with regulation theory's deduction of the emergence of post-fordism, and David Harvey's assertion that post-fordism and subsequently neoliberalism are but transitional stages in the rearrangement of capital into a new regime of accumulation.

Anyone claiming imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism has proven themselves to be anachronistic idealists.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

The central nexus of concern, the nation-state. is the concept of imperialism really relevant today? are we seeing its decline? the development of a trans-national capitalist class? what do you think?
Yes, I see the concept of Imperialism to be relevant, even today.

The claim of Imperialism being the highest stage of Capitalism hasn't necessarily proven to be false- however, it has evolved- into a much more progressed form of Imperialism.

Take a look at global capitalism- it is simply an extention of Imperialism. Imperialism hasn't necessarily diminished, but it has changed form. It may not be the same "imperialism" as the "imperialism" that existed during the time when Lenin wrote many of his works, but it is, perhaps, an advanced form of it.

Proof? Well, the conditions which existed making the theory of Imperialism relevant still exist today- with "global capitalism".

Originally posted by Lenin - Selected Works - Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism - VII - [email protected] As a Special Stage of Capitalism

Features of Imperialism
1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy;

3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves;

and

5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

These five features of Imperialism are features of global capitalism. This statement can be justified on this basis:

1) international monopolist capitalist associations still exist today - ex. the world bank, IMF, etc. and have complete control of industry and capital across the globe

2) this control allows them to exploit third world countries to obtain their resources, not to mention monopolies exploit workers of other countries and also workers of their own country by paying foreign people cheap wages to manufacture goods in more quantities while paying them almost nothing- this exploits all members of the working class the same way the working class was exploited as a result of imperialism

3) the world is still divided among the largest capitalist powers for the purpose of these capitalist powers to obtain capital through the resources of the world- which no one else can profit from other than them- so the same exploitation can be said to still occur today as it did during the time Lenin wrote of it- making the claim that Imperialism still exists today- only in an advanced form - relevant.

[p.m.a.]

Today's economy is not simply an "extension of imperialism": capitalism has reorganized itself half a dozen times since Lenin wrote that book. To define capital today as such is a gross simplification, and resoundingly un-Marxist. Have you at all studied the transitions of Fordism-Keynesianism, Post-Fordism, and Neoliberalism? While in Lenin's day, imperialism was the highest stage, to continue to stick to that thesis is like believing Marx was right that the revolution will be any day now.

Global capital no longer rests solely on the superprofits exploited from the third-world. In fact, the flexibility of capital and accumulation by dispossession are much more important today to the diversion of crisis than TW domination. Superprofits are still exploited from them, but look at the result: China, India, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia -- all these countries are rapidly industrializing, at a rate which suggests they will begin to surpass US economic capacity within a decade. Capital no longer necessitates imperialism to function: instead, it employs it as one of many modes of accumulation, but it is one that increasingly backfiring.

Leninists who refuse to believe anything but Comrade Vlad's century-old analysis, if they want to continue calling themselves Marxists, need to study a bit of regulation theory to understand how capital is infinitely more complex than just "peasants are kept poor for a labor aristocracy."

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:04 pm
Today's economy is not simply an "extension of imperialism": capitalism has reorganized itself half a dozen times since Lenin wrote that book. To define capital today as such is a gross simplification, and resoundingly un-Marxist. Have you at all studied the transitions of Fordism-Keynesianism, Post-Fordism, and Neoliberalism? While in Lenin's day, imperialism was the highest stage, to continue to stick to that thesis is like believing Marx was right that the revolution will be any day now.

Global capital no longer rests solely on the superprofits exploited from the third-world. In fact, the flexibility of capital and accumulation by dispossession are much more important today to the diversion of crisis than TW domination. Superprofits are still exploited from them, but look at the result: China, India, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia -- all these countries are rapidly industrializing, at a rate which suggests they will begin to surpass US economic capacity within a decade. Capital no longer necessitates imperialism to function: instead, it employs it as one of many modes of accumulation, but it is one that increasingly backfiring.

Leninists who refuse to believe anything but Comrade Vlad's century-old analysis, if they want to continue calling themselves Marxists, need to study a bit of regulation theory to understand how capital is infinitely more complex than just "peasants are kept poor for a labor aristocracy."
Yes, a lot has changed- but it is no more than an advanced form of Imperialism. It may have a different label, a different form, but it still has the same characteristics as Imperialism. I have studied much in regards to this topic area- but I refuse to deny the existence of Imperialism today. The reason I reject such claims that the theory of Imperialism is no longer valid is that there is relevant evidence that it has not diminished, but only 'modified' in form- in other words, it has progressed to a more advanced form of a more complex relation in regards to concentration and production of capital- and that the largest capitalist powers- whatever you might see them as - still have complete control of industry and capital. Of course I don't deny the complexity of this issue, but I have studied this quite a bit- to deny that there are characteristics of Imperialism present around the globe today is just the same as saying that global capitalism doesn't cause exploitation - which is definitely not the case. all the benefits of global capitalism are obtained only by the large capitalist powers of the world which have managed to exploit all members of the working class around the globe as a result of increased production and increased extraction of resources. You obviously read too little into Vladimir Ilyich's analysis of capitalist society.

[gilhyle]

The original question, as I read it, concerned the question of the relationship between the nation state and current economic developments. This issue is at the heart of the continuing relevance of the concept of imperialism.

The problem is made complex by the inadeuate development of the theory of imperialism in the first place. Bukharin's theory was wrong and Lenin's book, while much much better was only a 'conspectus', a still photograph of trends, a list of elements rather than an articulated theory, linking back to Marx's Kapital. I think its a great book, but lets not overstate its achievements.

That said, back to the nation state question. This is no. 5 in the above list quoted from Lenin. The issue as I see it is this (sorry if this seems to basic). Capitalism developed by the unification of national markets and states. Those were never closed economies. But beyond a certain point their separate development spilled over into mutual competition not as a peripheral but as an increasingly central feature of their industrial development. They clashed (WW1 and WW11) and the nature of their mutual competition was transformed, both by te defeat of some, the impoverishment of others and the occurence of a major workers revolution, threatening the lot of them. It took half a century after WW11 for them to get back to where they were in terms of competition among themselves in 1900.

There were two major difference. The various European powers had, meanwhile developed a project to limit national independence by creating political industrial and cultural links between themselves which radically regulated mutual competition. It still exists, but within the EU framework. Secondly, the EU as a whole allowed the US to continue as the major military power. Japan did the same thing.

Thus mutual competition has been distorted in two key ways: inra European competition is subject to extensive mutual regulation and competiton by other powers with America is subject to a self-denying ordnance that excludes the military sphere.

None of this amounts to a claim that there is no competition or that competition has been superceeed as the key driver of international relations. But it clearly affects how we understand that competition between the imperialist powers. They are competing again for the world, with various suppressions of competition a feature of that competition. Not only the suppressions of compettion arising from the self denying ordinances states hve adopted, but also suppressions of competition coming from the reorganisation of indsutry need to be taken into account....but that would take us into one of the other four elements of Lenin's list and the way in which cartels/industrial organisation evolved afer 1914.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:04 pm
Superprofits are still exploited from them, but look at the result: China, India, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia -- all these countries are rapidly industrializing, at a rate which suggests they will begin to surpass US economic capacity within a decade.
China, yes. India, probably. Iran was already industrialised in the mid-seventies. Venezuela and Bolivia are rather de-industrialising.

China has what it takes to "surpass" the US economic capacity. Which includes the weapons to defend the overtaking. The others have not.

But the rate at which the Chinese economy grows only suggests that it is going to overtake the US to those who don't understand that capitalism is subject to cycles. To a marxist, it suggests that the Chinese economy is heading to a big crack. That a Chinese crack will probably mean a general, worldwide crisis is also true. But the belief that China will be able to overtake the US by means of pure economic competition is incompatible with the knowledge that capitalism is no longer a progressive force.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

This thread is really good and it actually poses a very important issue:

If the theory of Imperialism is debunked and instead we see the emergence of Empire, then it means that the old position of defending the colonial bourgeosie against the imperialists (which is not how "anti-imperialists" phrase it but it implicilty means that-) is effectively counterproductive because we have to declare war to global capital from all corners of the earth, and refuse to pander behind national liberation bourgeosie.

[gilhyle]

Lot of truth in that Marmot, which is part of the reason why its important to understand why Empire is wrong.

I think talk of China outpacing the US in ten years is way off. I do think some countries have achieved or come close to achieving what Lenin thought impossible, namely going from imperialised to imperialist countries. The actual examples are really only small countries, notably Ireland and Singapore. Irelands status as an imperialiased country was complex and so is Singapore's position as an imperialist city state. We should also for completeness note how the imperialist outposts of South Africa/Rhodesia each became an imperalised country.

Those cases raise the possibility of status change, of imperialised countries becoming imperialist, but they also illustrate how difficult it is. We should not mistake a large powerful imperialised country for an imperialist one just because its size gives it power. I cant say for sure that China will not have broken through by 2100, but I wouldnt be placing any bets on it .

[syndicat]

Imperialism is a power system by which the ruling classes of certain countries dominate and exploit the labor and resources of other countries, and are able to suck down a disproportionate share of earnings of those other countries due to this dominance. It has both its economic and military/political dimensions.

Those who say that this is based on the nation-state have to deal with the following. Due to the huge internationalization of capital investment in the '80s/'90s, the capitalists in the core (imperalist) countries pushed to have the multi-lateral trade agreements, such as NAFTA and especially WTO, put in place, as a new regulatory regime to defend their global investments.

WTO empowers secretive tribunals, with personnel drawn from the world of the big corporations and their professional minions, that can overrule laws of any nation-state, including the USA.

The state has two basic aspects to it. On the one hand, it has its military, police, legal enforcement powers and responsibilities, which are essential for the ruling classes of the various countries. But political leaders need social peace to govern. A role of the state is to adjudicate disputes and minimize social disruption. In periods of popular upsurge, such as strikes, the state is thus a source of concessions to the working class, and this aspect of the state is the source of both the social wage and things like labor and environmental protections.

The so-called trade agreements are essentially an attempt by the ruling classes of the imperial countries at an end-run around this second aspect of the state, by creating an "executive committee of the ruling class" that is prior to any nation-state, and more directly controlled by capitalist interests. It's worth noting that the military is always exempted by the "trade agreements".

It's worth noting that the era of the "trade agreements" has beefed up the bargaining power of the core to the periphery, reducing the earnings of the third world. Thus the growth rate in Latin America since the beginning of the "globalization/neoliberal" era has been essentially zero, and the growth rate of Africa has been negative.

But it's not clear why the "trade agreements" are a means to competition or power struggle between different countries in the "core."

[peaccenicked]

The trouble with those repudiating Lenin's theory is that they throw the baby out with the bath water and become objectively pro-imperialist. Imperialism has changed its nature and the establishment of the US as the world's only super power was not visualized by either Marx or Lenin. The sad truth is that those who rubbish national sovereignty today
and see the world market as a great leveller in the name of globaliization are blind to US cultural economic hegemony. It is though US dominance is a natural development of capitalism and not an accident of history brought on by the decline of the British empire, the defeat of Germany in two world wars and the relative isolation of the Russian revolution.

This has lead so called Marxists to dismiss national movements as inherently reactionary
and rob them of their anti-imperialist content.

We have to be very careful of theories that take our jargon to serve the interests of the unipolar power especially now that rising economies have come to challenge that superior status.

It is impossible to calculate the balance of class forces with the utopian idea of abolishing national identity and States without the victory of the proletariat in each individual country. Internationalist socialist man will not be a product of a Pol Pot type year zero but a multi-lingual and cultural entity grounded in equality between nations.

As Nations lose specificity due to the global melting pot the tribal nature of nations will disappear. Nations might only remain as sporting and historical entities.

It does not bother me that much what our theortical problems will be then. There is too much to do first.

[gilhyle]

I think the power of the US is over rated. It is over stretched militarily and its use of companies like blackstone reeks of the Roman empire in its later phases. Its inability to deal with Iran and its patent failure in Iraq tells the true story. Its cultural dominance is even overstated - it is actually quite superficial Sure you can go to lets say west Africa and find rap bands and singers all over the place, some sporting cribs paraphanalia, but look a little deeper and the dynamics of west african rap music are independent, not derivative. (just an example)

The US actually defies the WTO whenever they see a conflict with their own interests. These organisations are tentative internationalisations of political structures, rather than established systems for international governance. ITstotally ovestating their role for example if one suggests that they are not fora for the competition of imperialist powers. Of course they are and everyone knows they are.

Thirdly (and this is just me instictively defending M&E) I dont think the dominance of the US was inconceivable to Marx and Engels for two reasons - it is very like the late 19th century position of Britain and they did recognise the exceptional potential of the US.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+October 18, 2007 10:08 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ October 18, 2007 10:08 am) These five features of Imperialism are features of global capitalism. This statement can be justified on this basis:

1) international monopolist capitalist associations still exist today - ex. the world bank, IMF, etc. and have complete control of industry and capital across the globe [/b]
Don't forget OPEC and Russia's proposal for a gas equivalent. However, I think in the modern world, the "five features" need to be interpreted more structurally:



1) We're past #1 already, because there exists relative monopoly power (just like relative vs. absolute surplus value). Ironically, the "hourglass" business economy intensifies competition, because at the top you've got companies with multinational markets. Lenin also acknowledged the continued existence of smaller, niche firms.


Originally posted by [email protected]
The problem is made complex by the inadeuate development of the theory of imperialism in the first place. Bukharin's theory was wrong and Lenin's book, while much much better was only a 'conspectus', a still photograph of trends, a list of elements rather than an articulated theory, linking back to Marx's Kapital. I think its a great book, but lets not overstate its achievements.

Indeed. The sad thing in all this is that Lenin didn't make that crucial link between accumulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#New_developments_in_capital_a ccumulation) and monopoly power, even as he linked monopoly power with imperialism.

Thankfully, Polish economist Michal Kalecki made that link. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0102jbf.htm)

The point is that, since we're past it, we should proceed to analyze how this monopoly power can manifest itself. Otherwise, we would need a long book detailing the structural development of capitalism from a historical perspective, from "original accumulation" to "normal" capital accumulation, concentration, and centralization to monopoly and finance capital (#1 and #2) to macroeconomic, corporate, and political imperialism (#3, #4, and #5).



2) The problem with #2 is that a de-merger has occurred between industrial capital and one particular subset of finance capital (at least to some extent). In his day, the industrial capital was tied to the nation-state. Today, the speculative subset of finance capital has broken free of the ties to industrial capital (well, maybe except venture capital, an increasingly prominent sub-subset of finance capital). (http://networksdialectics.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html)

The other subsets are financial-institution-based finance capital and corporate finance capital through "intercorporate investments" (significant influence, parent-subsidiary control, joint-venture control, etc.).


Speculative capital works in the same way as finance capital in general, pooling individual capitals under its control. The main difference is that classic finance capital is directed back into production -- loaned out to expand production. If that capital cannot find a place in production (again, because production opportunities are constrained by hyperproductive new technologies and exhausted markets), it is put to work in speculation.

Speculative capital is the culmination of the process of the formation of a general rate of profit, the overall system of capital that Marx talked about, where all capitalists partake in the exploitation of labor even if they do not directly produce use values.

Speculative capital permeates all sectors of the economy, as a kind of spirit (Hilferding referred to finance capital as the holy ghost of capitalism; speculative capital is the perfection of that permeation) in and behind and around production, connecting everything together. Because it profoundly affects raw material prices and interest rates, speculative capital affects the daily operations of production and transport. Through complex derivatives and other kinds of hedging, speculative capital dissolves boundaries between sectors in other ways connecting distant markets in the same commodities as well as markets in different commodities. The complexity of these financial interconnections is not feasible without computers and digital communication networks.

The article also had this to say regarding venture capital:


In a similar way, speculative capital, through hedge funds, is playing a more active role in private equity, that is financing start-up companies. See the 6/12/06 Business Week article, also the 4/5/06 WSJ article "Need Cash? Call a Hedge Fund". Speculative capital also provides sources of capital for venture funds, and ways for investors to speculate on new technologies.

What was implicit in his outline was the shift in the control of wealth (http://networksdialectics.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_archive.html) which increases something called leverage. He mentioned the "holding" system of parent companies, direct subsidiaries, indirect subsidiaries, and so forth. This holding system can be one of many connections between shifts in control of wealth and relative monopoly power (especially if the consolidated entity is by far the lead company in its markets). Then there's a relatively new aspect of this holding system: the joint venture.



3) Good on Lenin to emphasis capital movement over goods movement (which Luxemburg overemphasized), but again, the only viable example of this in his day was the export of capital. What about capital movement between developed countries, such that the US itself can be a net importer of capital?

On the other hand (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71967):


Me
I didn't know where to put this thread, to be honest. It's too momentary to put into the Theory forum or the Politics forum (one month's results does not make for an interesting discussion on a feature of imperialism), too politically unimportant to put into the News forum (for the immediate attention of working-class folks), and too macroeconomic to put into the Research forum.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/wl_can...bAg2dgIEwOjbA8F (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/wl_canada_nm/canada_markets_canada_dollar_bonds_col;_ylt=Amn68U gp8CPkGbAg2dgIEwOjbA8F)

While the news pertains to the Canadian dollar, there was a sentence that caught my interest:


The currency hit a session high of 97.45 Canadian cents to the U.S. dollar, or US$1.0262, moments after the Bank of Canada issued a more dovish statement and said its key interest rate would remain steady at 4.50 percent, as expected.

But the rise was short-lived and credited solely to a weaker greenback after U.S. data showed a record net capital outflow in August.

Is this cyclical, or the beginning of something big for the US here (back to the classic days of "exports of capital" in relation to imperialism)?



4) This, IMO, isn't as important as #1 structurally. All this says is that the relative monopoly power has become international in scope. Using business-speak, #1 = hourglass business economy, #4 = globalized market share for the Big Boys. Besides, the World Bank, IMF, their emerging monetary alternatives (like in South America), OPEC, etc. don't have as much day-to-day impact as the multinationals.



5) Get out flames, people! As I discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65550&view=findpost&p=1292390972), in order to properly evaluate Lenin's theory of imperialism, one must refer to all his works, and not just the "popular outline." He, alas, started to overemphasize the fifth feature, and then proceeded to say just months later ("Imperialism & The Split in Socialism") that colonialism was a quintessential feature of imperialism, despite keeping a much more open mind in the "popular outline."



I'll ask one last question for discussion: where do monetary concerns (like currency regimes) and energy fit into the five features above, or do they now merit separate mentions as additional features? (http://theoldmole.blogspot.com/2006/02/structures-of-imperialism.html) [My guess is that the fifth feature really needs a lot more "fleshing out," because Lenin's later overemphasis on colonialism has given way to monetary and energy concerns, among others.]



Last remark: IF indeed the theory of imperialism is debunked, it is only because we have entered into the epoch of decadence (and this is where the left-communist theoretical contributions on this epoch come into play), which appropriates much (but not all) from macroeconomic (including monetary), corporate, and political imperialism, while retarding much of monopoly and finance capital amidst diminishing returns in the aggregate. (http://www.monthlyreview.org/nfte0104.htm)

[Monty Cantsin]

A\

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, you implied currency regimes as a factor of imperialism (the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system, and that's TWO "t"'s for you ;) ), so that's a plus. Other than that, I think your essay is a wee bit too short, mainly because of the absence of any mention of monopoly capitalism in your analysis.

BTW, what course is this? Political science? Heterodox economics?

[Monty Cantsin]

It was for history, i had to show that imperialism applied to the 20th century. I thought that showing the persistence of core-periphery divide and accumulation by dispossession clinched it. I didn't have to explain the complexities of crisis theory and the organic composition of capital or the problem of realization. the root causes for capitalist expansion, just the foot prints to show it existed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Interesting.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

I have spent a lot of time lately trying to prove this-- thanks for your input!

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 02:28 pm
I have spent a lot of time lately trying to prove this-- thanks for your input!
i don't know whom your referring to, but I'm going to claim it.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Originally posted by Monty Cantsin+October 24, 2007 11:22 am--> (Monty Cantsin @ October 24, 2007 11:22 am)
Comrade [email protected] 24, 2007 02:28 pm
I have spent a lot of time lately trying to prove this-- thanks for your input!
i don't know whom your referring to, but I'm going to claim it. [/b]
I was referring to you and your post.

[Monty Cantsin]

Hey, does anyone know of any online journals which would publish that essay? - i know its not the best thing since sliced bread...but i really hate the thought that I've written it, put the effort in and then only a lecturer reads it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Try the "non-partisan" Monthly Review (http://www.monthlyreview.org/).

[Monty Cantsin]

hahahhahahahaha, your making fun of me...

[Comrade Nadezhda]

would be awesome if you could get it published.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 26, 2007 07:22 am
hahahhahahahaha, your making fun of me...
Um, I was actually being serious. :huh: That's where I learned about Kalecki and his contribution to the accumulation-monopoly-imperialism analysis (connecting the first two), and where Lenin fit in (connecting the last two).

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Hammer+October 27, 2007 12:49 am--> (Hammer @ October 27, 2007 12:49 am)
Monty [email protected] 26, 2007 07:22 am
hahahhahahahaha, your making fun of me...
Um, I was actually being serious. :huh: That's where I learned about Kalecki and his contribution to the accumulation-monopoly-imperialism analysis (connecting the first two), and where Lenin fit in (connecting the last two). [/b]


lets say, I have a school break coming up – and I wanted to immerse myself in economic theory and history…What books would you recommend?

I.E I’ve heard a lot about Kalecki – but I’ve never read him.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Though I haven't had the time to read Luxemburg's magnum opus (Accumulation of Capital), perhaps you can read it for me? :D

Either that, or follow ComradeRed's lead and meticulously read Das Kapital AND TAKE NOTES.

Or you could help me further the Learning discussion on Bukharin's Imperialism work (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71243).

Other than that, here is one other book worth reading:

Monopoly Capital by Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy (1966)

As for Kalecki, here's the original Monthly Review article (and I'm sure you'll find some good works mentioned in it):

Monopoly Capital and the New Globalization (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0102jbf.htm)