Imperialism

[BobKKKindle$]

How do proponents of capitalism respond to Lenin's theory of Imperialism? There are many examples which demonstrate that states project the interests of capital, by using violence to protect overseas interests, at the expense of the people who inhabit the countries where these interests are based. For example, in 1953, President Mossadeq of Persia nationalized his country's oil reserves so that the income generated from the sale of oil would remain within Persia, to provide a source of funding for capital investment and the provision of basic goods. Although Mossadeq promised that he would be willing to provide compensation to the companies which had owned the oil, he was assassinated by the CIA and replaced by the Shah - who undermined many of the progressive gains which had been made under Mossadeq's presidency, and did nothing to solve the economic hardship faced by Persia's citizens.

This is just one example - but it suggests that capitalism gives rise to violence, because the use of military force is necessary to ensure that the bourgeoisie are able to retain profitable investments.

[BobKKKindle$]

Is no-one going to address this?

[Awful Reality]

The capitalists run away when faced with facts, of course :D

[Robert]

There are many examples which demonstrate that states project the interests of capital, by using violence to protect overseas interests, at the expense of the people who inhabit the countries where these interests are based.

There are also examples of capitalist countries that do not use such violence, or haven't in a very long time. Who have Singapore, Finland, Switzerland or Chile invaded lately?

Where do they fit in your hypothesis?

[RGacky3]

There are also examples of capitalist countries that do not use such violence, or haven't in a very long time. Who have Singapore, Finland, Switzerland or Chile invaded lately?

Where do they fit in your hypothesis?

You can't look at Capitalism in terms of countries, (Something Capitalists ALWAYS do), because Capitalism is global, thats why some Capitalist countries have huge wealth and power and others don't. Thats why Capitalism as a global entity is led by companies in league with governments from certain countries. Singapore, Finland and Switzerland are not big powers with big Capitalistic interests in other countries, the United States is, China is, and believe me, if the Capitalists from Finland, Switzerland or Chile had the ability to achieve the power and influence that American Capitalists have over other countries they would wield it with just as much ferocity, but anyway, almsot ALL Capitalist intelectuals make the mistake that you make, as in looking at Capitalism as a country by country affair.

[BobKKKindle$]

There are also examples of capitalist countries that do not use such violence, or haven't in a very long time. Who have Singapore, Finland, Switzerland or Chile invaded lately?Imperialism is not always projected by means of armed force - global institutions are also important, and the internal voting structures of these institutions ensure that they are always under the control of the developed nations. For example, in the International Monetary Fund, voting power is distributed according to the size of each country's economy as a proportion of global economic output, and given that any decision requires an 85% majority to pass, this means that the United States is able to exercise an effective veto, as the United States accounts for 17% of the world economy. This institution is able to impose policies which suit the need of finance capital through Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) which force developing countries to sell state assets to private firms (note the example of the water utility in Cochabamba) and reduce regulations on the movement of foreign capital, in order to become eligible for debt relief or further loans.

Imperialism also occurs through disparity in power between developing countries and the countries in which finance capital is based - developing countries compete amongst themselves to create an environment which is attractive for foreign investment because domestic firms are not able to generate sufficient employment, thereby resulting in the reduction of labour and environmental regulations, a process which has been termed the "race to the bottom" in popular discourse. For example, in many Export Processing Zones (EPZs) it is now illegal for workers to create trade unions or threaten strike action when faced with poor working conditions and low pay.

Lenin recognized that Imperialism does not always assume the form of direct territorial control or conquest, but can assume a range of different forms:


Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence—the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.I:THSOC, Chapter 6 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch06.htm)

The use of force is only used when "peaceful" methods are not effective, and force is rarely used by smaller countries because they do not have sufficient military power to engage in armed conflict, and so rely on other countries which do possess military strength, such as the United States. These countries may provide a supporting role to create an image of moral legitimacy for foreign intervention, in exchange for part of the benefits of imperial conquest - for example, the smaller countries which were part of the Iraq coalition, although many have since chosen to withdraw their troops as a result of public pressure.

[Robert]

The mistake I make? Look at the original question posed by Bobkindles -- "states project the interests of capital by using violence to protect overseas interests." Not "global capitalist networks," but states.

It's Bob's thesis, not mine, correct? Singapore and Chile are states, correct? So are Thailand, Japan, Brazil, France, and Denmark. None fit the paradigm. Make them fit somehow or change the thesis.

If you guys really want to debate this stuff, I'm interested in hearing your own views, not some long exegesis cut and pasted from some other writers.

[BobKKKindle$]

It's Bob's thesis, not mine, correct? Singapore and Chile are states, correct? So are Thailand, Japan, Brazil, France, and Denmark. None fit the paradigm. Make them fit somehow or change the thesis.I did not suggest that every capitalist state always use force - only that this is a general tendency - and to claim that the theory of imperialism is only valid if the use of force is universal and applicable to all capitalist states is absurd. As explained above, the use of force is only one method which is used to maintain imperialist subjugation, and is a method only available to countries which possess sufficient military strength to conduct wars of conquest.

If you dispute the theory of imperialism, how else can you explain historic examples of state aggression where economic motives are evident - such as the example I described in my opening post?

Further examples include the American interventions in Central America to preserve the interests of the United Fruit Company.

The use of force against democratic governments clearly indicates that the United States has no desire to encourage the spread of democracy or to support democratic institutions where they exist. A distinction should be made between the ideas which governments use to make it seem as if foreign policy is based on moral principles, and the actual motives which determine foreign policy - a detailed analysis generally shows that the state conducts foreign relations based on what will best suit the interests of domestic elites.


It's Bob's thesis, not mine, correct? Singapore and Chile are states, correct? So are Thailand, Japan, Brazil, France, and Denmark. None fit the paradigm. Make them fit somehow or change the thesis.Japan and France once maintained large overseas empires, which provided an important source of raw materials and an outlet for capital which could not be invested in the domestic economy. Conflict occurred between Japan and France, resulting in the re-division of territory, and although both of these countries have lost direct political control of the periphery, they can both be classified as part of the imperialist bloc, as they retain control over the periphery by neo-colonial methods and derive benefits from the export of capital.

Again, the Marxist theory of Imperialism does not predict that every country will engage in armed conflict - some of the countries you have mentioned could arguably not be seen as part of the imperialist bloc because there are still lacking an industrial base and are subject to the control of another power.

Inter-imperialist conflict occurred between France and the United States prior to the Iraq war, as France's opposition to the Iraq war was based on a desire to preserve favorable oil contracts which had been signed between French companies and Saddam's government.


not some long exegesis cut and pasted from some other writersThe theory of Imperialism was formulated by Lenin - and so what is wrong with quoting passages from his work?

[Robert]

the use of military force is necessary to ensure that the bourgeoisie are able to retain profitable investments.This was in your original post. I took it to mean that you see force as inevitable. You gave a few examples, and I gave mine that indicate the contrary.


If you dispute the theory of imperialism, how else can you explain historic examples of state aggression where economic motives are evident - such as the example I described in my opening post?


I don't disagree that U.S. corporations' profits have been made in many instances at the expense of indigenous peoples, hell, indigenous peoples here at home for that matter. But there is such a thing as simple, greed, cruelty, national pride and adventurism as well. I do not believe that the Japanese really gave a damn about
"corporate profits" one way or the other, though admittedly it was oil that underlay the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese were a rapacious, racially supremacist bunch, as there have been in every era. But she got very little from her colonies in the initial period of expansion. National pride/arrogance and national security concerns were more in evidence than profit motive. Similarly, do you think Attila the Hun and Alexander the Great (no relation, btw) were after corporate profits?


The theory of Imperialism was formulated by Lenin - and so what is wrong with quoting passages from his work?

Nothing, I suppose. But it's dead dull reading, and frankly I'd rather hear your own ideas, which I do respect.

[BobKKKindle$]

Political factors can also be influential - it is unlikely that Vietnam posed any economic value for the United States, but it was seen as necessary to defend Vietnam, in order to prevent the spread of Communism to other states in the region.

However, this does not refute other examples where economic motives are evident - in addition to the example I have already given (the overthrow of President Mossadeq) a further example is the invasion of Iraq. Following the invasion of Iraq, several laws were signed to ensure a transition to a market economy. Order 39 of the Coalition Provisional Authority (available here (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031220_CPAORD_39_Foreign_Investment_.pdf) on the website of this authority) permitted full foreign ownership of a wide range of state-owned assets based on forty year contracts which can be renewed once they have expired, and investors operating in Iraq are able to repatriate all profits without restriction. These laws have allowed American firms to obtain control of important sectors on which Iraq's citizens depend, such as the provision of water. Is this not clear evidence of the economic motives which drive foreign intervention?

[Dean]

Political factors can also be influential - it is unlikely that Vietnam posed any economic value for the United States, but it was seen as necessary to defend Vietnam, in order to prevent the spread of Communism to other states in the region.

However, this does not refute other examples where economic motives are evident - in addition to the example I have already given (the overthrow of President Mossadeq) a further example is the invasion of Iraq. Following the invasion of Iraq, several laws were signed to ensure a transition to a market economy. Order 39 of the Coalition Provisional Authority (available here (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20031220_CPAORD_39_Foreign_Investment_.pdf) on the website of this authority) permitted full foreign ownership of a wide range of state-owned assets based on forty year contracts which can be renewed once they have expired, and investors operating in Iraq are able to repatriate all profits without restriction. These laws have allowed American firms to obtain control of important sectors on which Iraq's citizens depend, such as the provision of water. Is this not clear evidence of the economic motives which drive foreign intervention?

You seem to have forgotten the relevence of the military industrial complex. Every war is profitable nowadays.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How do proponents of capitalism respond to Lenin's theory of Imperialism? There are many examples which demonstrate that states project the interests of capital, by using violence to protect overseas interests, at the expense of the people who inhabit the countries where these interests are based. For example, in 1953, President Mossadeq of Persia nationalized his country's oil reserves so that the income generated from the sale of oil would remain within Persia, to provide a source of funding for capital investment and the provision of basic goods. Although Mossadeq promised that he would be willing to provide compensation to the companies which had owned the oil, he was assassinated by the CIA and replaced by the Shah - who undermined many of the progressive gains which had been made under Mossadeq's presidency, and did nothing to solve the economic hardship faced by Persia's citizens.

And how many massacres have been commited using Russian-provided AK's or Chinese Machete's?

How come when the CIA overthrows a regime, it's never because that nation had a revolutionary stance which threatend the stability, and lives, within a region and always for profit? Likewise, how come every time the Soviets overthrew a government which didn't fit their world view, it's because they were really a reactionary, evil movement that went against the wishes of the people (even if only 12 make those decisions)?

[/QUOTE]This is just one example - but it suggests that capitalism gives rise to violence, because the use of military force is necessary to ensure that the bourgeoisie are able to retain profitable investments.[/quote]

There have been cases were a nation seperated themselves from the Capitalist system....and now they complain about "blockades" they face because of it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Political factors can also be influential - it is unlikely that Vietnam posed any economic value for the United States, but it was seen as necessary to defend Vietnam, in order to prevent the spread of Communism to other states in the region.

Agreed, though Vietnam has certainly become a Capitalist victory.


However, this does not refute other examples where economic motives are evident - in addition to the example I have already given (the overthrow of President Mossadeq) a further example is the invasion of Iraq. Following the invasion of Iraq, several laws were signed to ensure a transition to a market economy. Order 39 of the Coalition Provisional Authority (available here on the website of this authority) permitted full foreign ownership of a wide range of state-owned assets based on forty year contracts which can be renewed once they have expired, and investors operating in Iraq are able to repatriate all profits without restriction. These laws have allowed American firms to obtain control of important sectors on which Iraq's citizens depend, such as the provision of water. Is this not clear evidence of the economic motives which drive foreign intervention?

Sorry, I didn't see any of that in the document.

I did find




2) This Order is subject to revision by the Administrator, or to adoption or replacement
by an internationally recognized, representative government established by the people
of Iraq.


and also




2) The duration of any license to use property shall be determined by the duration of
operations related to the foreign investment. The initial term of a license shall not
exceed 40 years, but may be renewed for further such periods. Licenses may be
reviewed by the internationally recognized, representative government established by
the people of Iraq upon its assumption of the responsibilities of the CPA.



So really, all the document says is that Iraq, in their transistion to Western-style democracy, should have a western type of economic system. These people honestly believe in the "freer the market, freer the people" philosophy, as long as they control the market, of course. At least, that seems to be the mantra of those who pushed the invasion, and there's nothing that shocking there from what I saw.

[BobKKKindle$]

How come when the CIA overthrows a regime, it's never because that nation had a revolutionary stance which threatend the stability, and lives, within a region and always for profit?

Can you provide an example of a country where American intervention has saved the lives of the inhabitants? It is estimated that Augusto Pinochet was responsible for the deaths of three thousand (source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121300288.html) for this death toll) Chileans through the persecution of political dissidents, and Pinochet would not have been able to attain power without the intervention of the CIA, and secret documents (which are available here (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8.htm)) show that the removal of Salvador Allende (who was elected as the head of a coalition government) was planned in advance by the CIA.

What risk did Mossadeq or Pinochet pose to regional stability or the wellbeing of their citizens?

The Soviet Union has also intervened in the affairs of other states, which is why some Marxists refer to the Soviet Union as being "social-imperialist" during the Cold war. This should also be condemned - although the Soviet Union was not imperialist in the same way as capitalist states because the Soviet economy was not driven by profit.


Sorry, I didn't see any of that in the document.

Closer reading is required then - the order specifies that national preference cannot be given to Iraqi firms (Section 4, Paragraph 1) the extent of foreign ownership cannot be limited (Section 4, Paragraph 2) and allows for the full repatriation of profits (Section 7, Paragraph 2, Point D, Subsection One)


These people honestly believe in the "freer the market, freer the people" philosophy, as long as they control the market, of course

Why would the market system allow for greater freedom? In Cochabamba, following the sale of the water utility to Bechtel, the price of water increased beyond what most people were able to pay, and the company also banned the use of rooftop tanks as a method of water collection - did this privatization make the people more free? How can people be free if they lack access to something so basic as clean water?

[Robert]

However, this does not refute other examples where economic motives are evident - in addition to the example I have already given (the overthrow of President Mossadeq) a further example is the invasion of Iraq.I have already conceded your point in part, but Iraq is a terrible example. Any plans by any person inside or outside of government to make Iraq a part of an American empire (we're talking imperialism, right?), or an excuse to "get its oil" was a pipe dream. It'll never happen and I don't even think Bush believed that it would. The USA will never recoup even half of its costs from the war, and it was regularly importing oil from Iraq before the invasion anyway. Oil hasn't gotten any cheaper, and the big bucks the oil companies are making is not coming out of Iraq.

I'll concede your point about Iran because you know more about it than I do, which isn't much. You might consider the geo-political motive as well before you draw firm conclusions as to its lesson; the CIA and the Brits feared in the 50's, rightly or wrongly, that Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of control if they didn't have their guy (the shah) in there. But that strikes me as something like the motive for the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 1890's or the Soviets in Afghanistan in '79. Money simply wasn't the motive, i.e., neither was a "projection of the interests of capital." But both were manifestations of what I call "imperialism."

What is it we're really debating here? If we agree that "sometimes capitalism is the driving force for empire building and sometimes it isn't," what's the lesson? Are you sure it isn't the USA that stands indicted under your thesis, and not capitalism?

[Awful Reality]

Iran would fall into the Soviet sphere of control if they didn't have their guy (the shah) in there. But that strikes me as something like the motive for the Japanese invasion of Korea in the 1890's or the Soviets in Afghanistan in '79. Money simply wasn't the motive, i.e., neither was a "projection of the interests of capital." But both were manifestations of what I call "imperialism."

What is it we're really debating here? If we agree that "sometimes capitalism is the driving force for empire building and sometimes it isn't," what's the lesson? Are you sure it isn't the USA that stands indicted under your thesis, and not capitalism?

Well there are multiple things I'd like to address here.

First of all, you need to understand that imperialism and colonialism are two different things. They are intimatly related, but colonialism refers to the policy of creating and expanding an empire. Imperialism specifically refers to an actual war that occurs for profit or gain (land or otherwise). The two have become almost synonymous recently, but what becomes important here is interventionism. Many people would claim that interventionism, a la Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf War, etc is not imperialism as it is not colonialism, but as Marxists and Historical Materialists we see both as being imperialism because it, like all war, is for the purpose of gaining or securing capital. Give me any historical war and I am sure that it can be traced to capital gain.

Tangent on Interventionism over, I'm going to address these wars. I'm not all too familiar with the Japanese-Korean war, so I'll talk about Afghanistan. The idea in Afghanistan was to protect an ally. Why are nations allied? Not because leaders like each other, because they need to secure and gain mutual interests. The USSR saw Afghanistan as an important asset in the Middle East, being a satellite, of course "socialist," and that the loss of Afghanistan would mean the loss of many other allies in the world and that they would lose profits. They needed an allied Afghanistan to have a voice in Mid-East politics. What else would be the point?

[Kropotesta]

Well there are multiple things I'd like to address here.

First of all, you need to understand that imperialism and colonialism are two different things. They are intimatly related, but colonialism refers to the policy of creating and expanding an empire. Imperialism specifically refers to an actual war that occurs for profit or gain (land or otherwise). The two have become almost synonymous recently, but what becomes important here is interventionism. Many people would claim that interventionism, a la Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf War, etc is not imperialism as it is not colonialism, but as Marxists and Historical Materialists we see both as being imperialism because it, like all war, is for the purpose of gaining or securing capital. Give me any historical war and I am sure that it can be traced to capital gain.

Tangent on Interventionism over, I'm going to address these wars. I'm not all too familiar with the Japanese-Korean war, so I'll talk about Afghanistan. The idea in Afghanistan was to protect an ally. Why are nations allied? Not because leaders like each other, because they need to secure and gain mutual interests. The USSR saw Afghanistan as an important asset in the Middle East, being a satellite, of course "socialist," and that the loss of Afghanistan would mean the loss of many other allies in the world and that they would lose profits. They needed an allied Afghanistan to have a voice in Mid-East politics. What else would be the point?
why you restricted?

[Awful Reality]

why you restricted?

For making a stupid, misogynist joke that was immature and not humorous. If you are in the CC you can find the thread. Obviously I don't believe what I wrote but I do think I deserve to be restricted for a while.

[Robert]

Well, I bet it's nice to know you're welcome here! (There's a lesson there, you know.)

As for this:
The USSR saw Afghanistan as an important asset in the Middle East, being a satellite, of course "socialist," and that the loss of Afghanistan would mean the loss of many other allies in the world and that they would lose profits. They needed an allied Afghanistan to have a voice in Mid-East politics. What else would be the point?

You're saying several things at once there: you see a geo-political angle in the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan and then you mention profits. I don't know that I agree with the profit motive, but I do agree with the "voice in Mid-East politics," or at least a big stick, angle. But again the "profits," if real, may only be incidental. I am not sure at this point exactly what you are claiming, but if the original thesis was, and I think it was, that imperialism is principally about the protection or projection of capital, then I'm not personally convinced.

[Awful Reality]

I am not sure at this point exactly what you are claiming, but if the original thesis was, and I think it was, that imperialism is principally about the protection or projection of capital, then I'm not personally convinced.

Yes it was, yes it is. If you are going to attempt to refute the historically materialist definition of imperialism, at least present an alternative. You are entitled to you opinion but your say-so of "okay, but I'm not convinced" is not enough. You are going to need to mention a war that cannot ultimately be traced to profit motive. And guess what? You can't. There are none. As we see today, with things like Blackwater USA, etc, not only is the theory historically correct, it is empircally correct.

You're going to need a better argument.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Can you provide an example of a country where American intervention has saved the lives of the inhabitants?

No, and I can't give you the number of people saved by seatbelts.



It is estimated that Augusto Pinochet was responsible for the deaths of three thousand (source for this death toll) Chileans through the persecution of political dissidents, and Pinochet would not have been able to attain power without the intervention of the CIA, and secret documents (which are available here) show that the removal of Salvador Allende (who was elected as the head of a coalition government) was planned in advance by the CIA.


Yes, and every country from East Germany to Moldova would haven't socialist if it wasn't for those damn T-72s (during the same period).

America felt a need to control the nations within it's sphere from going into any type of chaotic state, lest soviet infiltration (which was real, while I highly doubt the reported US backing of the freedom movements of Eastern Europe) take hold. This was during a war, and maintaining order was absolutely necessary so that, you know, a nuclear holocaust didn't occur.


What risk did Mossadeq or Pinochet pose to regional stability or the wellbeing of their citizens?

Quite simply, Mossadeq raised the possibility of setting a bad nationalist example. Pinochet stopped the possibility of civil war between the rich and the poor Chileans and ensured that today, Chile is a capitalist democracy.


The Soviet Union has also intervened in the affairs of other states, which is why some Marxists refer to the Soviet Union as being "social-imperialist" during the Cold war. This should also be condemned - although the Soviet Union was not imperialist in the same way as capitalist states because the Soviet economy was not driven by profit.

Yeah, it was out of a desire to control the world.



Closer reading is required then - the order specifies that national preference cannot be given to Iraqi firms (Section 4, Paragraph 1) the extent of foreign ownership cannot be limited (Section 4, Paragraph 2) and allows for the full repatriation of profits (Section 7, Paragraph 2, Point D, Subsection One)



Why would the market system allow for greater freedom? In Cochabamba, following the sale of the water utility to Bechtel, the price of water increased beyond what most people were able to pay, and the company also banned the use of rooftop tanks as a method of water collection - did this privatization make the people more free? How can people be free if they lack access to something so basic as clean water?


If Bechtel can't provide the water for a profit, who can? The government perhaps, using slave labor...

Seriously, the fact that the company itself banned the use of rooftop tanks clearly shows that this wasn't anything close to a free market. Think about it: A free market requires property. This company wouldn't be able to ban rooftop tanks, as you claim, if your property was respected.

Which is why a government allowing freedom of political choice is necessary to create a truly free market.

Not that I'm a cappie.

[BobKKKindle$]

Quite simply, Mossadeq raised the possibility of setting a bad nationalist example. Pinochet stopped the possibility of civil war between the rich and the poor Chileans and ensured that today, Chile is a capitalist democracy.How did Mossadeq set a bad example? The nationalization of Persia's oil reserves would prevent the repatriation or profits, and so funds would be available for capital investment (to develop an industrial base) and the provision of basic goods. Mossadeq was able to claim a popular mandate as he was elected - unlike the Shah who was imposed on the Persian people without their consent. Even if Mossadeq was setting a "bad" example, why should the United States have the right to intervene in the affairs of other states, when other states accept national sovereignty as a legitimate principle? Does every country have the right to forcibly change the policies of other states, or is this "right" limited to the United States?


Which is why a government allowing freedom of political choice is necessary to create a truly free market.Wrong - Pinochet's economic policies were based on the recommendations of the Chicago school (including Milton Freedman, widely acclaimed as having made important contributions to economic theory) who advised Pinochet to adopt radical free market policies - clearly a free market does not "require" or give rise to a free political system.


Yeah, it was out of a desire to control the world.Can you provide any evidence to support this childish claim? The Soviet Union generally respected the provisions of the percentages agreement, as shown by the refusal of the Soviet government to provide extensive military aid during the Greek Civil War.


(which was real, while I highly doubt the reported US backing of the freedom movements of Eastern Europe)Do you deny that the United States provided support to the Contras and other reactionary movements in Central America? Many of the officials who are accused of committing massacres were trained at the School of the Americas.


Seriously, the fact that the company itself banned the use of rooftop tanks clearly shows that this wasn't anything close to a free market. Bechtel's was acting as a natural monopoly - which can exist in a free market when marginal cost is falling at every level of output. When a natural monopoly exists, it is sometimes beneficial for the government to take control of the industry and provide the good at a loss - especially when the good which is being provided is a vital necessity, such as water.

[Awful Reality]

Would the Reactionaries please get it through their heads that imperialism is not in fact colonialism? Thanks :cursing:

[Robert]

If you are going to attempt to refute the historically materialist definition of imperialism, at least present an alternative. You are entitled to you opinion but your say-so of "okay, but I'm not convinced" is not enough. You are going to need to mention a war that cannot ultimately be traced to profit motive. And guess what? You can't.First, it's not my thesis, it's yours. You have the burden of proof. Maybe you've met it.

I've already presented "an alternative," or maybe two: 1) militarism; 2) adventurism; 3) nationalism; and 4) geo-politics. Okay, four. Sue me.

I've already cited the Russian-Afghan war of '79 as a war traced to geo-political interest. Profit IMO may have been incidental; no sane person wants to lose money, but that's different from saying they invaded "for" profit.

Maybe you are using the word "profit" more broadly to mean "any kind of advantage." Genghis Khan was interested in power, not profit, when he invaded ... well, just about everybody in his path.

Anyway, I'll add as other wars not motivated "by" profit 1) the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 (think we're making money on that one?); 2) the Franco-Prussian War of 1870; 3) the Russo-Japanese War of 1904; 4) the Falklands War of 1982; and 5) the Six-Day war of 1967.

None IMO had "profit," as most define it, as the driving force. In each case it was either nationalism, militarism, land, geo-politics, or some combo thereof.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

How did Mossadeq set a bad example? The nationalization of Persia's oil reserves would prevent the repatriation or profits, and so funds would be available for capital investment (to develop an industrial base) and the provision of basic goods. Mossadeq was able to claim a popular mandate as he was elected - unlike the Shah who was imposed on the Persian people without their consent.

Mossadeq would have risked setting an example of nationalization that could have swept the region. Hence, a bad example.


Even if Mossadeq was setting a "bad" example, why should the United States have the right to intervene in the affairs of other states, when other states accept national sovereignty as a legitimate principle? Does every country have the right to forcibly change the policies of other states, or is this "right" limited to the United States?

Because the United States isn't limited by a bogus set of rules.



Wrong - Pinochet's economic policies were based on the recommendations of the Chicago school (including Milton Freedman, widely acclaimed as having made important contributions to economic theory) who advised Pinochet to adopt radical free market policies - clearly a free market does not "require" or give rise to a free political system.


And Marx was the godfather of every socialist system ever implemented, though I doubt he would have agreed with those hideous creations.

Friedman may haven Pinochet economic advice, but this obviously could not have been a free market because it was not a free society. If I'm not free to sell my T-shirt saying the Prez is a Moron, then it's not a free market.

Unless you want History to judge the USSR based on what happened immediately following the civil war and mass unrest as being THE "Communist Example," you can't do the same to Pinochet.

30 years after Lenin took control, the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship. Chile became a liberal democracy. Obvioulsy, Friedmans economic guidance allowed this to happen, no?



Can you provide any evidence to support this childish claim? The Soviet Union generally respected the provisions of the percentages agreement, as shown by the refusal of the Soviet government to provide extensive military aid during the Greek Civil War.


They respected it because not doing so would result in obliteration. Since the USSR got the bomb, they have supported many movements around the globe. None of these resulted in "freedom."

Also, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is clearly a violation of another nations boundaries in trying to get a hand in the Middle East.

And besides, why the fuck did they spend all that time showing off their newest missiles? Maybe the Russians felt it necessary to prove they had a big dick or something.

Really, why didn't they spend more making some of the things the people of the west did? Do we really need 90,000,000 AKs? Refrigerators, TVs, automobiles (that work), microwaves, computers, tylenol, and many other things show what we did why they were spending so much of their industry making things to kill people.


Do you deny that the United States provided support to the Contras and other reactionary movements in Central America? Many of the officials who are accused of committing massacres were trained at the School of the Americas.

Do you deny the Soviet crushing of any popular Eastern Eurpopean movement during the same Cold War? If the Soviets weren't going to let any freedom onto their front porch, how could the US, strategically, give up any part of its backyar?



Bechtel's was acting as a natural monopoly - which can exist in a free market when marginal cost is falling at every level of output. When a natural monopoly exists, it is sometimes beneficial for the government to take control of the industry and provide the good at a loss - especially when the good which is being provided is a vital necessity, such as water.


But obviously, if Bechtel needs to try and ban rooftop tanks, they probably can't turn a profit because the market is literally saturated.

[BobKKKindle$]

Perhaps an admin could fix the multiple post problem?


Mossadeq would have risked setting an example of nationalization that could have swept the region. Hence, a bad example.What is it about nationalization which makes it a bad policy, from the perspective of the people who inhabit the country in which the property subject to nationalization is located? What negative consequences would arise if every government decided to take control of oil reserves to prevent the repatriation of profits, because of the example set by one state?

If the United States intervened because nationalization is a "bad" policy (and not because of "selfish" motives i.e. because of vested interests in Persia's oil) why did the United States discourage intervention (and later demand the withdrawal of British forces) following the nationalization of the Suez Canal?


Because the United States isn't limited by a bogus set of rules.So the United States has the right to intervene in the affairs of other states at will? Would you object if China adopted the same principle and decided to launch an invasion of Mexico, in defiance of Mexico's national sovereignty? If national sovereignty is not recognized as a principle governing relations between states, how can global stability be maintained?


Friedman may haven Pinochet economic advice, but this obviously could not have been a free market because it was not a free society.You are twisting the definition of a free market to exclude Chile from the definition, because of the crimes committed by the government - despite the fact that Chile is acknowledged as an experiment in neo-liberal economic policy, and is normally cited as an example of the benefits of the free market. Even if, according to your definition, Chile was not a "perfect" free market because of restrictions on political expression, on a relative scale of government intervention in the economy, Chile was more "free" than any other state in Latin America at that time, and arguably any other state which has ever existed - and so is a useful experiment for assessing the benefits of the free market.


Chile became a liberal democracy. Obvioulsy, Friedmans economic guidance allowed this to happen, no?How, exactly, is this obvious? You have not explained the causal relationship between a government adopting a free-market policy, and the extension of political freedom


Also, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is clearly a violation of another nations boundaries in trying to get a hand in the Middle East.According to you, national sovereignty is "bogus" so why is the Soviet Union's alleged disregard for the "sovereignty" of Afghanistan important or useful as a criticism? The Soviet Union was actually asked to provide aid by the government, in accordance with the provision of a friendship agreement which had been signed several years prior.


Do you deny the Soviet crushing of any popular Eastern Eurpopean movement during the same Cold War?I do not deny this claim - but this point was in response to the assertion that the United States did not provide support to movements seeking to undermine the power of progressive governments. The Hungarian Uprising (1956) was not a movement which aimed to restore capitalism or reverse the gains which had been made, but to create a more democratic form of socialism, based on popular participation in the political process.


But obviously, if Bechtel needs to try and ban rooftop tanks, they probably can't turn a profit because the market is literally saturated.The inhabitants of Cochabamba were forced to resort to collecting water in rooftop tanks because the price of water sold by Bechtel was too high - if the government had taken control of water provision or had refused to sell the city's water utility to a private firm, the price would be set at a level which allowed people to purchase water and still have money available for other goods.

----

No poster in this thread has been able to show that the theory of imperialism is invalid or refute the examples which have been given to support the thesis (Iraq, Mossadeq etc.) The main "counter-argument" has been emphasis on possible non-economic motives for an aggressive foreign policy - and yet I have never suggested that the drive for profit is always the main factor in overseas intervention, and have accepted that geo-political or ideological concerns can also be influential, and so this is not an effective refutation.

[Green Dragon]

How do proponents of capitalism respond to Lenin's theory of Imperialism? There are many examples which demonstrate that states project the interests of capital, by using violence to protect overseas interests, at the expense of the people who inhabit the countries where these interests are based. For example, in 1953, President Mossadeq of Persia nationalized his country's oil reserves so that the income generated from the sale of oil would remain within Persia, to provide a source of funding for capital investment and the provision of basic goods. Although Mossadeq promised that he would be willing to provide compensation to the companies which had owned the oil, he was assassinated by the CIA and replaced by the Shah - who undermined many of the progressive gains which had been made under Mossadeq's presidency, and did nothing to solve the economic hardship faced by Persia's citizens.


The facts here though, to support the claim, are somewhat in error.

There had been a shah in Iran (Persia) for well over a thousand years. He was head of state. Mossadeq was elected prime minister. He was also a strong admirer of the USSR, which in 1953 means the USSR as structured by Joe Stalin.
Now, my first question would be: Do revlefters here really wish to place as a martyr a crypto-stalinist (considering the ban on Stalinists on this website)?

Secondly, Mossadeq sent the Iranian economy into a tailspin. When the shah attempted to intervene, he chased the shah out of the country. In other words, Mossadeq overthrew the Shah. Mossadeq then attempted to nationalise the oil fields, probably as a face saving desperate gasp. Such a move continued the instability and violence in Iran, He was asssinated, and shah returned to his legal office.




This is just one example - but it suggests that capitalism gives rise to violence, because the use of military force is necessary to ensure that the bourgeoisie are able to retain profitable investments.


Not at all. There was not universal love for Mossadeq in Iran.
You are basing your analysis on the flawed premise that the "revolution" is inevitable. And efforts to resist it causes the problem.

Another question: Why do you seek to praise a man who sought to seize property for the Persian people? What happened with with the objection of socialism to nationalism? What about its desires to be international?

[RGacky3]

I've already presented "an alternative," or maybe two: 1) militarism; 2) adventurism; 3) nationalism; and 4) geo-politics. Okay, four. Sue me.


Most of those go hand in hand with profits, 1. Militarism, ever heard of the military industrial comlex? Militarism does'nt exist for its own sake, its usually because militarism is such a great money maker, and also from --- nationalism, much of which is all about protecting your nations economic interests from others, geo-politics, is also tied in with profits, because geo-politics is all about getting more influence and power globally, which is also what profits is about, money=power, and power=money (i.e. having power allows you to create opportunities to make money).

All of those are directly related to power which is also directly related to profits.

The only one I can't really account for is adventurism, but seriously, how many wars were faught purely for adventurism.


I've already cited the Russian-Afghan war of '79 as a war traced to geo-political interest. Profit IMO may have been incidental; no sane person wants to lose money, but that's different from saying they invaded "for" profit.

They invaded for geo-political reasons, for more global power, which turns into economic power and political power, which go hand in hand. You can't seperate power interests, they are completely intwined.


Anyway, I'll add as other wars not motivated "by" profit 1) the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 (think we're making money on that one?); 2) the Franco-Prussian War of 1870; 3) the Russo-Japanese War of 1904; 4) the Falklands War of 1982; and 5) the Six-Day war of 1967.


The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, was to avenge 911, i.e. show the world that the US is still in control, and no one can mess with us, which in turn equals more influence in the world, which leads to profits, meaning people better cooperate with us, look what happend to Afghanistan, don't try funny stuff with us, don't touch our land, people or money. Its tied together. They did'nt make money directly but they gained power.

I think you get the point.

[Kronos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_imperialism

[Robert]

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, was to avenge 911, i.e. show the world that the US is still in control, and no one can mess with us, which in turn equals more influence in the world, which leads to profitsNow you're really reaching, like those guys who can connect any movie to Kevin Bacon. If I look hard enough, I can find a connection between the war and Microsoft ... want to go there?

Let me really infuriate you and add another war not motivated by profit: the current war in Iraq. Spewing coke on the computer screen? Hear me out: there's a book out called "What Happened" by Scott McLellan that has all the Bush haters in the media uncorking champagne. Know what McLellan says was the real reason for the war? Not fear of mushroom clouds as Condi and Cheney claimed, but (gasp) a desire to spread democracy in the middle east. That, says this former insider who has blown the lid off the Bush administration, is the "ugly truth" about Iraq.

Now, unrealistic as the goal may have been and continue to be, we can surely agree that "spreading democracy" is not the same thing as "getting fat oil contracts for Exxon-Mobil", right?

[RGacky3]

Now you're really reaching, like those guys who can connect any movie to Kevin Bacon. If I look hard enough, I can find a connection between the war and Microsoft ... want to go there?

Its not that far of a stretch, look at history, look at all empires, how they had to exert control over their empire, its the same thing, saying its all profits is simplistic, because making profits from a country is just one way of excerting power over them and benefiting from it.

In fact take a smaller example sweat shop factories, or work places in general, employers go through extensive leangths to keep theier workers inline, you know what happens when the workers start to mutiny a little? Or organize? Take things in their own hands? The employer freaks out (any one thats tried to organize their workplace knows that), and will do everything in his power to stop it, shops get closed down and companies will take a profit loss to stop Unions.

Its the same thing with American imperialism, America is the boss, and it needs to be in control, and profits, are a part of that.


Know what McLellan says was the real reason for the war? Not fear of mushroom clouds as Condi and Cheney claimed, but (gasp) a desire to spread democracy in the middle east. That, says this former insider who has blown the lid off the Bush administration, is the "ugly truth" about Iraq.


Let me ask you, why does the United States only happend to want to spread democracy to Countries that are not obedient to it? What about Saudi Arabia? Why not spread democracy there? Or even put pressure on them, what about Pakistan for example? Why not put some democracy there? You know why? Because those countries are in line, they are obedient, they arn't "rogue states."

Also you know as well as I the history the United States has had and still has in repressing democracy in countries, more recently Venezuela, and Palestine trying to subvert the democratic proccesses in those countries.

Believing the War had ANYTHING to do with spreading democracy is rediculously naive.


Now, unrealistic as the goal may have been and continue to be, we can surely agree that "spreading democracy" is not the same thing as "getting fat oil contracts for Exxon-Mobil", right?

It would be different things, if it were true, but its not, it has nothing to do with spreading democracy and has all to do with control, politically and economically.

[Robert]

Believing the War had ANYTHING to do with spreading democracy is rediculously naive.

In the last sentence of my last point I anticipated this very point, and admit it may be valid. But the problem remains that this belief, if "ridiculously naive," destroys McLellan's credibility. He's the one making the claim!

If it is true, then McLellan is credible and so the Iraq war is not about oil. Or profits.

It's one or the other. I'll take either answer.

[RGacky3]

Since when did McLellan have any credibility to begin with? Or any politician for that matter.

[Robert]

Since when did McLellan have any credibility to begin with?

Good answer.

Common sequence: 1) go to Washington; 2) get a book deal; 3) develop a conscience.

Too bad they're not reversed.

[Bud Struggle]

Robert the Great: Know what McLellan says was the real reason for the war? Not fear of mushroom clouds as Condi and Cheney claimed, but (gasp) a desire to spread democracy in the middle east. That, says this former insider who has blown the lid off the Bush administration, is the "ugly truth" about Iraq.



Let me ask you, why does the United States only happend to want to spread democracy to Countries that are not obedient to it? What about Saudi Arabia? Why not spread democracy there? Or even put pressure on them, what about Pakistan for example? Why not put some democracy there? You know why? Because those countries are in line, they are obedient, they arn't "rogue states."

Also you know as well as I the history the United States has had and still has in repressing democracy in countries, more recently Venezuela, and Palestine trying to subvert the democratic proccesses in those countries.

Believing the War had ANYTHING to do with spreading democracy is rediculously naive.

You know, I subscribe to the "bring democracy to the poor blighted bastards" theory. I don't think it was the primary reason to attack Iraq--but it most certainly is the reason the war as dragged on for so long and we've had all the problems we've had over there. It would have been much easier top have crushed the Iraqis and put in a Saddam "Lite" as ruler. But one that was on our side--we definitely took the long hard route in nationbuilding.

Unfortunately, you can no more build a democratic nation than you can build a flower. Essential personal freedoms have to be something organic in the belief system of a people before one can even start to discuss democracy in a population. The Iraqi people while having many of the trappings of a rational society under Saddam, really proved themselves to be quite feudal in their belief systems when her was removed.

[RGacky3]

It would have been much easier top have crushed the Iraqis and put in a Saddam "Lite" as ruler. But one that was on our side--we definitely took the long hard route in nationbuilding.


Do you know what that would have done in the PR area? That would have been political suicide, and btw, don't think that given different circumstances (less grass roots opposition, less protests, less questioning by the American people) that that would have been below them, they've done it before, many times.


Essential personal freedoms have to be something organic in the belief system of a people before one can even start to discuss democracy in a population. The Iraqi people while having many of the trappings of a rational society under Saddam, really proved themselves to be quite feudal in their belief systems when her was removed.

Essencial personal freedoms are organic in EVERYONE, its not a cultural thing, thats why in every culture in every government theres a history of resistance and dissent, remember before Saddam there was a relatively free government, but there was one problem, the government was pro-soviet, then Saddam came in, who was supported by the Americans, why? Because the Iranians were being disobedient, and Saddam was against them, plus its always good to loose a pro-soviet government, regardless of its freedoms and the replacements human rights abuses. Then Saddam came in, gassed his own people, no problem, invaded Iran gassed them, no problem, killed his own people, go right ahead, oh wait a minute ... He's getting cocky, invades kuwait, bad man, punishment, now he's being disobedient, he's served his purpose, and now we can't get his oil (UN sanctions, lets get rid of him.

So there we go, thats a short little history of recent Iraq, now seriously, do you believe it has ANYthing to do with democracy? There was relative freedom and democracy before Saddamm, and guess what, those Iraqies handled it just fine, they did'nt go around killing each other. America, is the same as EVERY empire in the past, it wants power.