Jim wrote:
I think that almost all modes of production (and social formations)
involve a drive to conquer. The ancient Roman system (for example)
involved conquest and imperialism, even though it wasn't capitalist.
In fact, it's my hypothesis that when Lenin, Bukharin, Luxembourg,
et al were criticizing capitalism for being "imperialist," they
never meant to say that _only_ capitalism was imperialist. Instead,
they were saying that despite all of its vaunted liberalism, the
capitalism they saw was just as imperialist as ancient Rome, etc.
Diverse modes of production, social relations, family structures,
etc. could co-exist under premodern and pre-capitalist empires, but
capitalist empires have transformed all modes of production, social
relations, family structures, etc. that came under their power into
capital's image, slowly but surely, even when emissaries of imperial
metropolises tried to preserve and exploit "traditional" social
relations.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/>
* Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/>
* Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/>
* Calendars of Events in Columbus:
<http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>,
<http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/>
* Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/>
* Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/>
* Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio>
* Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>
