Imperialism

[Dimentio]

Even though modern imperialism in some aspects is different from ancient and premodern conquests, did not the Romans, Aztecs, Persians and Mongols conquer areas in order to attain resources which could further the legitimacy and wealth of the ruling classes of these vastly different empires? Is'nt that enough similar to modern imperialism to qualify as being defined as at least "proto-imperialism"?

[Vanguard1917]

Even though modern imperialism in some aspects is different from ancient and premodern conquests, did not the Romans, Aztecs, Persians and Mongols conquer areas in order to attain resources which could further the legitimacy and wealth of the ruling classes of these vastly different empires? Is'nt that enough similar to modern imperialism to qualify as being defined as at least "proto-imperialism"?

Yes, if you're using a very ahistorical, and thus pretty worthless, definition of imperialism. From the POV of Marxism, though, imperialism has a very definite, specific meaning, as a stage in the development of the capitalist mode of production. Frank Furedi gives a pretty good answer to your question in his book The Soviet Union Demystified:

"For Marxists the term imperialism has a very specific meaning. In the course of history the most diverse regimes have built empires, established colonies and engaged in military occupations. The aim of scientific analysis is to specify the social forces that give rise to expansionism and militarism, to create a precise understanding of different historical phases. The ahistorical approach, which lumps together all forms of foreign aggression and labels them imperialist in an attempt to explain the whole course of world history, in the end explains nothing. Lenin's theory of imperialism, by contrast, applies specifically to the capitalist mode of production: it only makes sense in relation to the development of capitalist societies.

"For Lenin imperialism could not be reduced to colonialism, annexation, or any other particular aggressive policy. Imperialism was a form of social organisation that capitalism was obliged to assume to conteract the effects of its decline. Marx had argued that, at a certain stage of its development, capitalism was forced to restrict free competition and reorganise itself so that accumulation could continue. Lenin drew out the implications of this analysis and argued that, for the most developed capitalist countries, the only way to escape tendencies towards crisis was to expand internationally.

"Lenin drew particular attention to the way the tendency for the rate of profit to fall at home forced capitalist countries to export capital abroad. This compulsion to operate globally stimulates rivalries among the major capitalist powers, as they divide and redivide the world into separate spheres of influence. In the imperialist era, military adventures and colonial occupations are not arbitary acts of foreign policy, but the inescapable outcome of capital accumulation on a world scale. Militarism and colonialism are not therefore the defining features of imperialism. These features are not the starting point, but the consequences of the form of social organisation that decadent capitalism is forced to adopt to guarantee its survival."

[Dean]

Imperialism has gone far and beyond the notions offered by Lenin. It involves not only the expansion of Capital markets, but of capital consumption to underdeveloped and weaker nations. In the cases of the latter, which include Palestine, Sudan, Columbia, Afghanistan, South Africa and Iraq, the subjected nation does not purchase, sell or otherwise involve itself with Capital, outside of the cunsumptive force of the military and social programs applied to the regions. The military, paramilitaries and conflict corporations purchase the goods in the "interests" of the relevant people, nations or interests, so the market stays squarely within the borders of industrialized nations while the actual consumption is experiences overseas. This is a necessary expansion of the force of Capital, one which conveniently removes all economic power from those who are subjugated by the application.

[BobKKKindle$]

It involves not only the expansion of Capital markets

You appear to be very confused. When Lenin described the export of "capital" as being one of the main features of the imperialist epoch, he was not referring to capital as the term is understood in bourgeois economics (machinery which is used to aid production, or military hardware) rather, by capital he meant investment overseas to take advantage of a vulnerable workforce and counteract the falling rate of profit. This remains the central component of imperialism, because the importance of investment flows (measured in terms of value) has increased relative to flows in commodities, such as manufactured goods and raw materials. This does not mean that capturing overseas markets (for the sale of weapons or any other commodity) is not an important feature of imperialism, as evidenced the prevalence of tied aid (aid which is given on the condition that the recipient country will spend it on goods produced in the donor country) but it is not the most important feature and so it is wrong to assert that Lenin's analysis of imperialism is no longer relevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I would generalize the "export" of capital to just "circulation" of it in general. I mean, the U$ is a net importer of capital (including contributions to its notorious public debt from outside).

[Dimentio]

Even under the "golden age of imperialism" 1870-1914, it was actually only the British Empire which fulfilled Marx's definition of imperialism. The French and German colonial empires were mostly looking for prestige, and actually paid more for their dominions that they got from them. The Russian Empire was also a traditional empire which took nations for the sake of taking them, not for their economic benefits.

[Dean]

You appear to be very confused. When Lenin described the export of "capital" as being one of the main features of the imperialist epoch, he was not referring to capital as the term is understood in bourgeois economics (machinery which is used to aid production, or military hardware) rather, by capital he meant investment overseas to take advantage of a vulnerable workforce and counteract the falling rate of profit. This remains the central component of imperialism, because the importance of investment flows (measured in terms of value) has increased relative to flows in commodities, such as manufactured goods and raw materials. This does not mean that capturing overseas markets (for the sale of weapons or any other commodity) is not an important feature of imperialism, as evidenced the prevalence of tied aid (aid which is given on the condition that the recipient country will spend it on goods produced in the donor country) but it is not the most important feature and so it is wrong to assert that Lenin's analysis of imperialism is no longer relevant.

It is no longer relevant as the export of Capital Markets, since the consumptive people or receivers of "services" are not involved in anything except subjugation at the hands of those products. There is not even really a trade, so I don't see how it relates to Lenin's definition.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is no longer relevant as the export of Capital MarketsThis is objectively false, as each year the world spends $45-60 billion on purchasing arms which represents a dramatic fall compared with the annual value of arms transactions during the Cold War, and is tiny relative to global capital flows, which include investment as well as other types of resource transfers such as debt repayments, and reached $6 trillion in 2005 and show no signs of falling in the near future. Given this difference in value, how can you possibly claim that arms spending is the key component of imperialism? The arms trade is a component of imperialism and is useful for the imperialist bloc as a means by which they can stabilize governments in the global south which have agreed to protect their overseas economic interests against neighboring countries and internal forces. This is why Saudi Arabia is one of the world's most important destinations for arms exports, especially for the UK. However, investments (and, to a lesser extent, valuable resources) remain the central concerns of imperialist powers, not the arms trade.

Also, you persist in using the term "capital" with a capital "c" without clarifying what you are actually talking about. By capital, do you mean machinery which is used to produce other goods, as the term is understood in bourgeois economics? Or is capital money which is used to invest in an enterprise in the hope of gaining a profitable return, as Marxists understand the term? What is the "export" of "Capital Markets"?

[KC]

Imperialism has gone far and beyond the notions offered by Lenin. It involves not only the expansion of Capital markets, but of capital consumption to underdeveloped and weaker nations.

This is actually the Luxemburgist definition of imperialism, if I remember correctly. Lenin responded to it, and I'll post it later tonight if I find it.

[Tower of Bebel]

Even under the "golden age of imperialism" 1870-1914, it was actually only the British Empire which fulfilled Marx's definition of imperialism. The French and German colonial empires were mostly looking for prestige, and actually paid more for their dominions that they got from them. The Russian Empire was also a traditional empire which took nations for the sake of taking them, not for their economic benefits.
Marx' definition of imperialism was "caesarism" or Bonapartism: a characteristic of Louis Napoleon - i.e. a form, a type of government. This differs from imperialism as monopoly capitalism - i.e. something organic, a (highest) stage (of capitalism). During Marx' life there was no imperialism like the later. Imperialism took off during the crisis of the late 1870s, early 1880's. Only during the epoch of wars and revolutions (1905/1909-...) did marxism give a satisfactory answer to the demand for in-depth analyses of monopoly capitalism: Luxemburg's "Accumulation of capital", Lenin and Bucharin's "Imperialism ...", Hilferding's, etc.

The Russian empire was subjected to imperialism. The empire was not a product of monopoly capitalism. It was a product of the rise of capitalism in the West during the Ancient Regime. And it kept on being subjected to the West.

The German and French empires on the other hand were imperialist empires because they struggled for markets and resources in the interest of their expanding national economy. The capitalist state became in a certain way a "victim" of monopoly capitalism because it had to pay (e.g. military interventions) for the temporary and structural solutions sought by an expanding capitalism that had reached many limits. Capitalism needed structural solutions (like the formation of monopolies) to counter the falling rate of profit. States were the ideal means for cheap exploitation, the integration of the workers' movement, the defense of national capitalist interests and etc.

[BobKKKindle$]

Although Lenin's analysis of imperialism is one of the most important developments in Marxism, he may have underestimated the duration and effects of imperialism by characterizing it solely as the final stage of a long historical process. In 'Open Veins of Latin America' Galeano notes that the pre-capitalist annexation of Latin America by the Spanish empire in the 16th century indirectly facilitated the emergence of commodity production and even allowed the rapid development of capitalism to take place in countries such as Britain, as the precious metals taken from the Americas and shipped across the Atlantic ocean were used to fund the purchase of luxury manufactured goods from what was then England, for the Spanish nobility, and the revenue generated through these transactions was often invested in small enterprises in England and used to expand the scale of production, a process which increased the strength of the bourgeoisie and accelerated the disintegration of feudalism. Can Lenin's theory account for this phenomenon? Did Luxemburg have anything to say on this issue?


The capitalist state became in a certain way a "victim" of monopoly capitalism

"Victim" is not the appropriate term to use here because it implies that before the emergence of imperialism as a distinct stage, the state had an independent character and was not tied to the bourgeoisie. In reality, the state has always been a tool of the bourgeoisie and this is even more true during the imperialist epoch as monopoly capitals have sufficient financial resources to take complete control of the political system and exclude any kind of progressive alternative, and major shareholders are often appointed to positions of importance within the state, such that the political and economic elites converge and eventually become the same group in terms of their composition and class interests.

[Dean]

However, investments (and, to a lesser extent, valuable resources) remain the central concerns of imperialist powers, not the arms trade.

And you don't view military intervention an investment - if only an investment by the government into its own market? As I pointed out, military actions are a large part of this, but not the only investment inherent in this repressive mode of action.


Silly child.
This is yet another of your infantile attacks, which have become quite a burden as of late. At least one member has complained to me about it, you have already been warned for such comments and you have been "touring" members' user pages flaming them. I don't know what I did to deserve your derision, or what they did, but it accomplishes nothing beyond making you look alienating and sad.

If you are having emotional problems, feel free to talk to me about it. I really am willing to listen. But please stop turning what appear to be fairly civil arguments into matters of personal contention. Thanks.

[Le Libérer]

Even though modern imperialism in some aspects is different from ancient and premodern conquests, did not the Romans, Aztecs, Persians and Mongols conquer areas in order to attain resources which could further the legitimacy and wealth of the ruling classes of these vastly different empires? Is'nt that enough similar to modern imperialism to qualify as being defined as at least "proto-imperialism"?Imperialism has the characteristics and qualities you describe and is a recent development, historically. It takes for granted the understanding that every political, military, technological, religious and economic means available will be used to oppress workers and subbordinate resources of less powerful nations to the economic, political, religious and cultural goals of the dominant imperial nation or nations. This form of imperialism began with the rise of the European empires in the fifteenth century as a result of maritime exploration.

Another definition uses imperialism is a synonym for empire. This definition includes every form of empire dating back to the beginnig of history. Historically, empires may be geographic (Egypt, Greece, Persia), religious (Holy Roman Empire) and/or ideological ( Japan, Russia, China). Yes, the old tsarist (tsar is derived from Caesar) Russia and the USSR were empires. Although Qin's China was the first Chinese empire, today's PRC has even greater aspirations, to be the world's dominant power by the next century.

And of course, the U.S. is and has been an empire for almost 200 years.

To be an empire in todays world is to be imperialist.

I think confusion can result from the fact that the two definitions share the concept of a nation state as the root and source of imperialism/empire.

[BobKKKindle$]

And you don't view military intervention an investment - if only an investment by the government into its own market?

Military intervention is primarily a means to achieve a set of ends, and countries to not intervene just because it creates an automatic "market" for their arms. The use of force is generally treated as a lost resort and governments prefer to use more subtle ways of pressing their demands due to the political and economic costs associated with declaring war on another country, and when countries do conduct an invasion, the cost of invading and then maintaining an occupation force is often a subject of major concern and public debate, as in the case of Iraq/


This is yet another of your infantile attacks

Sorry.

[gilhyle]

Imperialism as a defiinte historical phase in the development of capitalism is obviously quite different from the rampages of colonial invasion charactersitic of pre-capitalist societies, which (leaving aside feudal expansionism) were essentially driven by the need to broaden the agricultural revenue base of centres of state administration and religion and to facilitate the opening up of new revenue sources from trade and pillage.

Imperialism as a stage of capitalism has little to do with this - but there is a transition during which the two overlap and you can have loads of fun trying to untangle to the conceptual tools required to narrate the transition accurately.

But the much more important point is that at the heart of the Marxist concept of imperialism is the idea that international expansion of certain national capitalist economies comes to impede the development of other national captialist economies.

What is particularly significant about the recent reversal of capital flows is that it seems as if it might prove the precursor of the recycling of capital within former colonies and thus signal an end of the imperialist phase of capitalism, as understood by Marxism.



Quote:
This is yet another of your infantile attacks
Sorry.

I should really wander out from the philosophy forum on a more regular basis, such civility is refreshing.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wow, Gil! In all my time on this board, you NEVER posted in this administrative forum until now! ;)

[gilhyle]

I dont really understand the point of it.....Im too simple I guess