http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism-thaxis/1999-January/013151.html
>>> Andrew Wayne Austin 12/31 11:49 AM >>> Rob, Several things must be considered. Imperialism in the history of Marxist thought is a scientific theory, or, more accurately, a set of scientific theories, that refers to international activity and relations in the era of monopoly capitalism, and a method for periodizing history. If one accepts Lenin's theory of imperialism, for example, one must hold to the view that world-capitalism is an abstraction that is concretely divided into national units whose bourgeoisie use the state to advance their interests against the interests of other bourgeoisie and their national states. Lenin was talking about the major territories, with the periphery considered more in terms of regions or zones of conquest and exploitation. If one accepts Kautsky's theory of imperialism one must agree to the premise that imperial relations are to be understood in terms of the relation between the economic core and the periphery. Kautsky's theory is problematic in that the relation between core and periphery is a general relation that exists throughout history. Thus the term imperialism is not specific to capitalist development. Lenin's theory is much more accurate in this regard since it nails down the characteristics of a stage in capitalist development. Imperialism does not exist anymore according to Lenin's theory because the situation of the national bourgeoisie using their states against other national bourgeoisie is not the present situation, and probably isn't conceivable in the present situation. Rather the present situation is one in which the transnational capitalist class uses the bourgeois state to contain and control labor pools and to secure environments conducive to the extension of production and commodity chains globally. The development of capitalism in the post-World War II period has undermined the material basis for, and transformed the imperatives of, the bourgeois state as it existed under imperialist arrangements. Of course, there are other theories and they have their problems. But the question before us is this, and it is a question of basic scientific procedure: do we remove concepts to the history of science when they no longer fit empirical reality as defined by the scientific system being used, or do we change the concept to fit the new empirical reality. I submit to you that the latter course is the course of rationalization and ad hoc conceptualization and results in sloppy theoretical work, which also leads to incorrect practice. The concept "imperialism" is too concrete to be applicable to the present global situation. This is not to say that imperialistic relations do not still exist. But, overall, imperialism has passed as period of capitalist development (unless you are a Kautskyite, of course). Btw, the term "globalism" is an ideological term used by organic intellectuals of the transnational elite or a derogatory expression used by Stalinists, Leninists and Trotskyites who wish to maintain the rhetoric of imperialism in face of contrary evidence. Historical materialists like Stephen Gill, Bill Robinson, Robert Cox and others are using the term "globalization" and "transnationalization" to describe the new stage of capitalist development. Andy This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
