[Marxism] Imperialism

[Haines Brown]

> abu hartal:
> 
> > As for imperialism, it has a specific economic meaning which
> > should all be to clear
> 
> abu, it might be helpful if you would state clearly what you mean by
> imperialism, since in my experience it is one of those vague terms,
> like "dialectics", where one should always ask the speaker/writer
> exactly what they mean to say.
> 
> In my experience the term usually has a trivial and a non-trivial
> meaning.
> 
> In the trivial meaning, used by many non-marxist activists as well
> as many supposed marxists, it is merely a synonym for the use of
> armed force by capitalist nation-states.
> 
> In the non-trivial sense, used by Lenin to clarify the emergence of
> colonial empires under the aegis of the leading capitalist
> nation-states, it rests upon a questionable theoretical foundation
> (the supposed transcendence of the law of value by direct rule of
> monopolies, a "rotting" and "dying" capitalism, etc.)

Abu Hartal, I believe you are entirely correct to be concerned about
our use of terms that are ambivalent (although there should be no
comparable uncertainty about the word "dialectics" in my view).

I also believe you are correct to distinguish the traditional or
conventional meaning of the word "imperialism" and its use in a
Marxist context. The term originally referred to a state within which
there were significant "national" and "class" (using these words in a
very loose sense) distinctions, and the only way the stability of such
a complex whole could be ensured was by militarizing government (head
of state becomes the imperator, the commander in chief).

What Marxism adds is a systemic view that ties politics in with the
economy and class. Where you and I may have a parting of the ways is
over your characterization of Lenin's position. I say "may" because
I'm not quite sure I understand your summary of that position. Perhaps
if I describe my own take on the matter you can tell me if we really
differ. I don't understand how monopoly "transcends" the law of value.

One way for a contradictory system to address the symptoms of its
contradiction is to intensify exploitation at home (such as by sweat
labor), but this only deepens the contradiction, which becomes
problematic in an age when the system comes to depend on mass
acquiescence or support.

So ultimately the contradictory system must engage its environment in
more intensive ways. In the present context, that environment is of
course social, but my point applies as well to the natural
environment. This intensified relation with the environment can be
manifest in a variety of ways, such as gaining access to critical raw
materials or raw materials at a reduced price, gaining access to
surplus value generated abroad, dominating trade in one's own favor,
etc.

Political force (military conquest) is certainly one way to do this,
but it can be done, perhaps at less cost or risk, through economic
domination, and this is where monopoly and finance capital come in.

My aim here is not to offer a definitive analysis of imperialism under
capitalist conditions (even if I were up to that job), but to
illustrate a point. I believe the basic issue from a Marxist viewpoint
is not the empirically specific means by which capitalist
contradictions are addressed, but a systemic view of capitalism that
with imperialism engages the system's environment in new and intensive
ways.

I suspect Lenin was addressing the world in which he lived and not
trying to invent general laws that apply to all times and places.

Haines Brown