Imperialism and Capital

[BobKKKindle$]

In I:THSOC, Lenin argued that, in the age of monopoly capital, the export of capital is more important than the movement of goods, and the colonial periphery exists primarily as an outlet for investment which cannot be invested in the domestic economy. The periphery allows for super profits due to the low cost of labour, in addition to other factors. This transforms the countries which comprise the core into rentier states, which derive their income solely or mainly from the returns of foreign investments, instead of productive labour, and so are parasitic in character.

From Chapter Four, The Export of Capital:


Typical of the old capitalism, when free competition held undivided sway, was the export of goods. Typical of the latest stage of capitalism, when monopolies rule, is the export of capital.
As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will be utilised not for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists, but for the purpose of increasing profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries. In these backward countries profits are usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap. The export of capital is made possible by a number of backward countries having already been drawn into world capitalist intercourse; main railways have either been or are being built in those countries, elementary conditions for industrial development have been created, etc. The need to export capital arises from the fact that in a few countries capitalism has become “overripe” and (owing to the backward state of agriculture and the poverty of the masses) capital cannot find a field for “profitable” investment.From Chapter Eight, Parasitism and Decay of Capitalism:


Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-50,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons”, who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness. The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies.However, when we compare Lenin's predictions with the modern world, we see that there may be a problem in his emphasis on the importance of the periphery as an outlet for capital, because developed countries now serve as the main destination for foreign investment. For example:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article1095140.ece


A near-trebling in FDI inflows into the UK, fuelled by several multibillion-pound takeovers of leading companies here, meant that Britain leapfrogged the United States to become the top direct investment destination in a bumper year for the activity, the Paris-based OECD’s figures showed.What does this mean for Lenin's theory? Why have his predictions regarding capital export not proved correct? Did he understate the importance of markets and sources of raw materials as factors guiding imperialism? Are developed countries currently "rentier states" or are they based on productive labour?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Is a new theory of imperialism needed? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-theory-imperialism-t69324/index.html)


Awhile back, I read this blog (http://theoldmole.blogspot.com/2006/02/structures-of-imperialism.html) and even made brief comments here on its analysis (I think they got lost with the server upgrade), but with the motions of the modern world to consider, is a new theory of imperialism needed (preferrably one that has more detail than just a "popular outline")? Should the phenomenon itself be changed to "macro-capitalism" (because the economic features below are more prominent), in contrast to Marx's analysis of what I consider to be "micro-capitalism" in Das Kapital?

Consider:

1) The role of "accumulation by dispossession" (as described by David Harvey), which encompasses the traditional primitive accumulation (as analyzed by Rosa Luxemburg), privatization, and even intellectual property rights ("The commodification of cultural forms, histories and intellectual creativity entails wholesale dispossessions (http://titanus.roma1.infn.it/sito_pol/Global_emp/Harvey.htm)");

2) The export of commodities as a result of overproduction (analyzed by Rosa Luxemburg);

3) The modern "hourglass" corporate environment, rife with consolidations at the top (and littered with petit-bourgeois niches at the bottom) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=901762&postcount=1) for the sake of exercising as much monopoly power as permissible by anti-trust laws (barring industry-wide "trusts," which would result in economic distortions associated with the charging of monopoly rent);

4) The role of leverage and finance capital (analyzed by Rudolf Hilferding) - no longer tied from head to toe with industrial capital, in contrast to the case in during the time of "third-generation" Marxists Lenin and Luxemburg - and now the latter's more speculative subset ("venture capital" and other "speculative capital"), especially as part of the credit system as a whole (http://www.revleft.com/vb/banks-and-credit-t67963/index.html) (although I don't know if credit as a whole is tied from head to toe with imperialism);

5) The role of currency regimes (Should this be part of #4? :confused: ), especially since the abandonment of the gold standard;

6) The export of capital (analyzed by Lenin), but also the import of capital (most notably by the U$A) and the export/import movement of labour ("outsourcing" and "immigration");

7) The ever-changing division of the world market; and

8) Geopolitical considerations (post-colonialism), including "ultra-imperialism" (Kautsky's theory, as per its near-realization in the Western world during the Cold War).



Consider gilhyle's replies there:


Absolutely, though I think some of the features you list could be dealt with in the existing theory. The key problem is that imperialism has become an epoch made up of distinct periods and there is no theory of the periods of imperialism within Lenin's views. The idea that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism is no longer sufficient (not that it is wrong - but that it is not sufficient).

1. We need a much more developed theory of how monopolization occurs, works and what the counter tendencies are.

2. We need to understand better how countries can escape the status of being imperialised and how imperialised countries can develop

3. We need to understand the sense in which globalisation and multi national companies do NOT imply that capitalism has ceased to have a national foundation and the sense (if any) in which national economic formations are insurmountable within the imperialist social formation.

4. We need to understand the sense in which finance capital never came into existence or the sense in which it has ceased to exist - the sense in which it was a transitional formation.

5. We need to understand the very particular characteristics of social production in imperialist societies.

etc....etc.

Happy to try to though its a long time since I looked at Hilferding. Hilferding looked at the idea that the progress of industrial concentration has been accompanied by an increasing coalescence between bank and industrial capital. However, what happened to industrial concentration ? What actually happened was that the period of protectionism from the 1920s to the 1960s reversed some of the coalescence of industrial and financial capital. Secondly the regulation of bank capital prevented the further coalescence of bank and industrial capital. Thirdly the regulation of concentration of by competition law has significantly impeded the spontaneous trend in the concentration of industrial capital. In summary then industrial capital concentrated to a lesser extent than Hilferding anticipated and banking capital did not move as close to industrial capital as Hilferding predicted. That is not to say that ther is no relationship between industrial capital and banking capital but it is not to merger of the two that Hilferding expected and which led him to conceptualise finance capital..



Ignore the Stalinist's reply there, but also consider the debunking of Lenin's "labour aristocracy" stuff (ie, it's only true in regards to highly paid pro athletes, celebrities, etc. - but not in a First-World-Third-World sense).