[was: To JD vis-a-vis "stages of imperialism".]
Scott writes:
> It seems to me that very different types of "stages" are being mixed up in this discussion so far.
>
> Capitalism/imperialism can be divided into stages or periods in any number of ways. ONE very important and very basic way to do it is Lenin's way:
> Stage 1) Highly competitive, pre-monopoly capitalism. (I.e., capitalism up until the late 19th century.)<
Having studied economic history, I don't think it's accurate to call this stage "highly competitive." There were all sorts of local monopolies, due to poor transportation, communication, etc., often exacerbated by political barriers.
> Stage 2) The very changed form of capitalism since then, which has been characterized, and IS STILL CHARACTERIZED, by a) monopoly or semi-monopoly or domination of most important markets by a small number of oligarchic [oligopolistic?] firms (at least WITHIN each country), and b) rampant imperialism. Since these are the two most distinctive characteristics, this stage is often called
"monopoly capitalism" or simply "imperialism". <
a) I think that what's happened is that monopoly and oligopoly have taken a role on a larger geographical scale than in "stage 1." Even so, there are periods of intense competition. Since about 1980, the US economy has faced intense competition from other countries, especially when the exchange rate of the dollar has been high (the early-to-mid 1980s, the late 1990s to the present). At the same time, a lot of the US monopolies were undermined or even abolished, as with the break-up of AT&T and the abolition of government-sponsored cartels (the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Civil Aeronautics Board). What we see now is a new "stage" of concentration and centralization of capital, encouraging the rise of new monopolies and oligopolies _on a world scale_.
b) some of the most rampant imperialism (e.g., Britain's grabbing of India) occurred before this period, in the merchant-capital period. To some extent the rise of colonialism at the end of the 19th century that Lenin _et al_ point to is an illusion, based on a pause in the conquest of the world by the capitalist countries. The imposition of the UK as the hegemonic power in Europe after the Napoleonic wars (or the creation of a "balance of power" there) lead to a lull in European expansionism. The end of the balance of power, i.e., the rise of Germany and the United States to compete with the UK lead to a surge of colonialism in the late 19th century. This trend was followed by "later-comers," such as Japan, who got into the colonialism game in the 1920s & 1930s.
>(I've always thought that "capitalist-imperialism" is a less misleading term than simply "imperialism". I notice that Jim also uses the term 'capitalist imperialism'.)<
right.
> Of course there are other "stages" or periods of capitalism based on other considerations. Marx talked about early mercantile capitalism, for example, though clearly this is part of pre-monopoly capitalism in Lenin's framework. And there have been changes over the last century and more which allow us to subdivide the imperialist era into the sort of "stages" that Jim lists below (although many people do it quite differently). But this does NOT mean that any of these subdivisions have "superseded" Lenin's stage 2 (imperialism). They are simply subdivisions based on secondary factors.<
I find Bukharin's framework to more convincing than Lenin's (as did Lenin, apparently).
> Using Lenin's framework there has really been only ONE additional form of capitalism/imperialism in history, and that is now almost extinct. This is the Soviet form of state capitalism in which the monopoly tendencies of Western-style monopoly capitalism are qualitatively more extreme, almost complete in fact. This extreme form of state monopoly capitalism can, it seems, only come into existence by means of a newly developed bourgeoisie capturing state power in an up-til-then socialist country. And history has demonstrated pretty well that it is very unstable and unable to compete economically with Western-style monopoly capitalism. The few small remaining state monopoly capitalist countries won't last for long in their present form.<
I don't think of the old USSR as being "capitalist," though that's the kind of subject of fruitless debate that pen-l usually avoids.
> But considering just the imperialist era, how should we go about dividing it up into reasonable "sub-stages" or periods (or "cycles" or "spirals")? <
The whole point of stage theory is to add perspective to a more concrete analysis. It would be a mistake to get too bound up in the theory of stages, reifying them.
> Almost everyone marking out these sorts of periods focuses on the following factors: world wars, the overthrow of major regimes (such as the USSR and its empire circa 1989-91), revolutions (such as the Bolshevik revolution), counterrevolutions (such as the Khrushchev group coming to power, or the revisionist coup in China after Mao's death), and major economic changes in the world economy (such as the Great Depression, the post-WW2 boom, and the long slowdown which began circa 1973). In short, the three determinants are usually wars, changes in class rule in major countries (revolutions or counterrevolutions), and major economic changes in the world.<
The whole idea of the "Khrushchev group coming to power" as involving a counter-revolution has never made any sense to me. I'd follow Isaac Deutscher and others, who pointed to the severe decline in working-class power after 1917 or so as allowing the revolution that permitted the "Stalin group" to take power. Whether that's a "counter-revolution" or not depends on your definitions. If Stalin's USSR was "capitalist" (which I doubt), then it was a counter-revolution, a return to a version of the status quo ante 1917. If it was a new form of class society (e.g., bureaucratic collectivism), then it's a revolution, though not a socialist one as that term is usually used. Given either kind of revolution, the relatively small event of Khrushchev coming to power could happen, since the workers didn't have the power to stop it. They couldn't stop Gorby either.
In any event, if I were a Russian worker, I'd rather be ruled by the Khrushchev group than by the Stalin group.
JD
