====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:08 AM, J L <jleftbr...@yahoo.com> wrote: > ====================================================================== > > Norway supplies raw materials (oil and gas) to the world economy ; that's why > it > is rich. Norway actually was colonized by Sweden for much of its history. I > would not characterize it as an imperialist country. > > Jeff > The whole obsessive questioning 'is random medium-small country imperialist?' seems both historically backwards and unimaginative. In particular the idea that we should be thinking of imperialism in exclusively or even primarily nation-state terms seems wrong-headed. Geographically imperialism seems today to be defined more by particular centers. Places like New York, Washington DC, London, Brussels, Frankfurt, Tokyo. Perhaps also emerging centers in China, India, and Dubai. Of course there are some countries whose state and military apparatuses play particularly important roles in imperialism, in particular we might think of the US as in some way uniquely imperialist due to its central, though possibly waning role in this whole setup. And yes it is true that there is some level of conflict and competition between different imperialist centers of activity but even so it is a far cry from the sort of inter-state rivalry of nationally-bound capitals that characterized the world of Lenin's day. Is Norway imperialist? In one sense 'no' if you have in mind Norwegian imperialism as being out there in competition with other state-based imperialisms. But in another sense 'yes' as Norway is deeply connected to particular capitalist centers and is part of the EU and NATO, etc which are important imperialist structures. It is part of the capitalist/imperialist 'core' or at least very close and well integrated. In this way it differs from countries like Iran or Venezuela which are capitalist but are also much more peripheral in the overall system. This peripheral character is what has allowed a certain amount of space for the particular political experiments each has undertaken. However, one gets the sense that, worldwide, this sort of space has been rapidly shrinking and that such experiments are increasingly tenuous and difficult to maintain. This is one of the reasons that I think the whole 'campist' approach is likely to founder now in ways that it probably wouldn't have in the past. -dave ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
