I wrote:
> >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.
Yoshie writes:
> 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.
right. Obviously, there's more to
capitalist imperialism than its name. The classic theorists of imperialism
(including Hobson, who I forgot to mention) chose the name based on the
comparison with Rome, etc. But capitalist imperialism is different from other
imperialisms.
Jim Devine
