>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/01 09:48PM >>>
Yoshie:
>The essence of imperialism may be best understood as what is
>necessary to ensure the global reproduction of social relations of
>capitalism, for which a variety of means -- including embargoes --
>are used, depending on what changing circumstances demand. [Etc.]
I find this posting very interesting. It goes without saying that I agree
with a lot of what is said in it. :-)
My discomfort with Yoshie's take on the essence of imperialism is that it
suggests the existence of some supra-national capitalist organ aware of the
needs of global capitalist reproduction and acting accordingly and even
flexibly ("depending on what changing circumstances demand"). But what is
such an organ?
((((((((
CB: Wouldn't the WTO, IMF, World Bank, U.S. Treasury, NAFTA, NATO, US war machine, et
al, combine to be this organ ?
(((((
All one sees is heterogeneous and even conflicting policies
implemented by different states (and even the same one) and their
international agencies -- even if (and when) under the hegemony of the
richest state. In what sense are these policies 'necessary' for the global
reproduction of capitalism?
Does the global reproduction of capitalism has ever really required much
coherence of this sort? How come the national states from the rich
countries, following imperialistic policies, led themselves into the first
world war?
((((((((
CB: Isn't the sharp diminution of interimperialist rivalry and war today exactly an
indication of the unity and greater conscious imperialist organization of its unity ?
(((((
How was the early-20th-century imperialism designed to ensure
the global reproduction of capitalism? Isn't that the Leninist prototype of
what imperialism is about?
