Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch
In a message dated 1/18/2011 10:04:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, _cb31450@gmail.com_ (mailto:cb31...@gmail.com) writes: Hear , hear, . . . . CB Thanks CB. The intent was a general summary agreeable of the broadest Marxist framework and divergent views of Lenin's meaning of imperialism. The past decade of discussion of neo-liberalism as a regime is akin to saying "neo-imperialism." Does today's Latin America represent colonies or neo-colonies of American imperialism? Or political states occupying a "certain position" within the new financial and military architecture? Colonialism was a specific economic-social-political relation rather than just "big states," "little states" or no state, oppressing peoples and oppressed peoples, etc. A couple of days ago was the 50 anniversary of the assassination of Lumumba and occasion to rethink the question of transition to the neo-colonial state and its subsequent development. The legacy of colonialism is alive and well in the Congo and throughout much of the former colonial world. Yet, this is not ones father's imperialism. II. The investment banker and scholar Henry C.K. Liu, who is more communist than 90% of American Marxists, called today's imperialism "neo-imperialism" in the context of a decade of writings focused on the new form of finance capital. Liu deploys concepts such as "capital as a notional value" meaning an imaginary value or lacking the surplus value dimensions that characterized the financial-industrial capital of which Lenin wrote. Liu calls speculative capital "speculative finance," buttressed by a new non-banking financial architecture and operating as a notional value in a monetary system of fiat money or rather currency. His premise is that financial architecture is by definition different from economy that is production of products, although the interactive of both must be examined in the concrete. Thus he speaks of monetary policy - not as a thing in itself, but as a distinct political form of rule over the economy. I think. One would have to ask him exactly what he means but his meaning seems crystal clear to me - a decade later, thousands of hours of reading later and shifting through his all of his writings. Liu is a communist with money. I mean communist in the sense of the movement that erupted with the dissolution of primitive communism. Liu calls for a system of sovereign birth credits - entitlement or economic communism in the here and now, allowing the individual a lifetime of socially necessary means of life. Being born with an entitlement as the social contract, means a mode of distribution not requiring a previous or prior contribution of labor as the means for consumption. It is left to society to reorganize itself to meet all it reproduction needs. A freaking banker is more progressive than many of the communists and Marxists. All of this is part of describing the new world we face and practical solutions. "Neo-imperialism" or "neo-finance capital," might be the term we are seeking. Sovereign birth credits or birth rights as the mode of production and specific architecture of economic communism is something to think about. Go figure. Waistline. ___ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch
Hear , hear, Waistline CB ^ > Comment > > Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking to > secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating > "imperialism" in > this era of political domination of speculative finance as a general > "imperialism" defeats the mean of this tread: "the end of the imperialist > epoch." Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of imperial-colonialism is > part > of asking the question "end of the imperialist epoch." > > Lenin's Hobson unraveling of "modern imperialism" of his era was useful > because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and political > features. Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital > (financial-industrial > capital); hundreds of millions of slaves of a direct colonial system and > the fight > amongst direct colonizers for a re-division of an already divided world. > This fight for spheres of influence was based in the national productive > logic of huge multinational state structures. > > The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has meant > more than "imperial outreach" or a lack of rights of those beings > colonized. > Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end to the direct > colonial system; the end of neo colonialism and the imperial colonization > based on financial-industrial capital. > > The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of the > colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule expressed > financial-industrial capital. Vietnam Liberation and unification in 1976 > is a > world book mark on an epoch that began with our revolution of 1776. This > does > not mean no one of earth is oppressed and exploited through world > bourgeois > production relations. Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism, > has been superseded. > > America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span > > two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the > British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct > "anti-colonial interest" imperialist interest, and then settled the war > against > the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the Civil War > facing > a world with colonial states as direct appendage of imperialist state > structures preventing its free flow of finance capital beyond Latin > America. > > The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct colonial > system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the political and > economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political basis for imperialist > war in > the past century, rather than the economic impetus for war under > capitalism, (anarchy of production with war production being a profit > center) was > the fight for colonies or spheres of influence based on colonial > possessions. > The fight between imperialist states was not over one huge state > colonizing another but over the colonies represented by these massive > states. This > form of imperialism is very much part of the question "end of the > imperialist epoch." > > The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct > colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of > finance > capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to recreate > the > direct colonial system. For the German state direct colonialism meant > revitalization of economic and social life - "the thousand year rule," or > in lay > person terms "French wine, Polish hams and Slavic slave women." > > American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's "Imperialism," > > sought to recreate the political world leading the charge to wipe direct > colonialism from the face the earth. American financial imperialism sought > to > defeat its enemies and identified them as direct colonizers of the world. > It's slogan was "national independence" and self determination of nations > up to and including the formation of separate states. This battering ram > against the direct colonial system explains why "Uncle Ho" armies entered > Hanoi at the close of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled > Banner. > Then of course came the policy change and the Cold War. > > This era of financial-industrial capital - finance capital, from direct > colony to neo-colony spanned from the results of the Civil War until the > 1980's and the Reagan administration. Bush I declared the "New World > Order" to > the citizens of earth. This meant in my mind the imperialism we had known > was being jettisoned from history. Not imperial outreach but imperialism. > > The imperialist epoch is the epoch of the bourgeoisie rather than Imperial > > Rome, as its politically dominant sector - based on its connection in > commodity production, sought to recreate the world in its interest. > Hence, a > specific form of imperialism. Each era and ep
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch
>> Historically, only capitalist countries which have intervened militarily to establish settler colonies or to set up puppet regimes to facilitate the exploitation of these territories by their own corporations and have been characterized as imperialist by Marxists and others. << In a message dated 1/14/2011 9:10:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, __shmage@pipeline.com_ (mailto:_shm...@pipeline.com) _ writes: Are you saying that China today is not capitalist? That Han settlement in Tibet is not massively sponsored by the Chinese regime? That the "Tibet Autonomous Region" does not have a puppet government? That Chinese corporations are not heavily present in Tibet? (and were not even talking about Sinkiang!) Comment Obviously the modern Chinese state is not a SETTLER STATE or seeking to secure or maintain a colony established by settlers. Treating "imperialism" in this era of political domination of speculative finance as a general "imperialism" defeats the mean of this tread: "the end of the imperialist epoch." Qualifying and quantifying the meaning of imperial-colonialism is part of asking the question "end of the imperialist epoch." Lenin's Hobson unraveling of "modern imperialism" of his era was useful because a real imperialism was examined in its economic and political features. Lenin spoke of monopolies, finance capital (financial-industrial capital); hundreds of millions of slaves of a direct colonial system and the fight amongst direct colonizers for a re-division of an already divided world. This fight for spheres of influence was based in the national productive logic of huge multinational state structures. The history of colonialism - at least in general Marxist terms, has meant more than "imperial outreach" or a lack of rights of those beings colonized. Imperialism of the epoch we are leaving has meant an end to the direct colonial system; the end of neo colonialism and the imperial colonization based on financial-industrial capital. The post WW II period and into the 1980's saw the rise and fall of the colony and neo colonialism as these political forms of rule expressed financial-industrial capital. Vietnam Liberation and unification in 1976 is a world book mark on an epoch that began with our revolution of 1776. This does not mean no one of earth is oppressed and exploited through world bourgeois production relations. Rather, a specific form of imperialism -colonialism, has been superseded. America inaugurated an epochal wave of colonial revolutions that would span two hundred years. We settled our national liberation struggle against the British Empire - with a Slave Oligarchy intact seeking its distinct "anti-colonial interest" imperialist interest, and then settled the war against the slave system. American finance capital emerged from the Civil War facing a world with colonial states as direct appendage of imperialist state structures preventing its free flow of finance capital beyond Latin America. The First World Imperialist War shook imperialism - the direct colonial system, to its foundations, with the Soviets breaching the political and economic bourgeois imperialist chain. The political basis for imperialist war in the past century, rather than the economic impetus for war under capitalism, (anarchy of production with war production being a profit center) was the fight for colonies or spheres of influence based on colonial possessions. The fight between imperialist states was not over one huge state colonizing another but over the colonies represented by these massive states. This form of imperialism is very much part of the question "end of the imperialist epoch." The Second World Imperialist War sounded the death knell of direct colonialism. The defeat of German fascism was the last gasp of a form of finance capital politically dominated by industrial capital seeking to recreate the direct colonial system. For the German state direct colonialism meant revitalization of economic and social life - "the thousand year rule," or in lay person terms "French wine, Polish hams and Slavic slave women." American finance capital - emerging 50 years before Lenin's "Imperialism," sought to recreate the political world leading the charge to wipe direct colonialism from the face the earth. American financial imperialism sought to defeat its enemies and identified them as direct colonizers of the world. It's slogan was "national independence" and self determination of nations up to and including the formation of separate states. This battering ram against the direct colonial system explains why "Uncle Ho" armies entered Hanoi at the close of WW II with CIA in tow playing the Star Spangled Banner. Then of course came the policy change and the Cold War. This era of f
[Marxism-Thaxis] The end of the imperialist epoch
The end of the imperialist epoch Marv Gandall Sun Jan 9 07:47:34 PST 2011 * Previous message: [lbo-talk] Haaretz - Shooter of Jewish Congresswoman listed 'Mein Kampf' as favorite book * Next message: [lbo-talk] [Pen-l] The end of the imperialist epoch * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] * Search LBO-Talk Archives Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author Sort by: Reverse Sort Without describing it in these blunt terms, Financial Times economic columnist Martin Wolf argues below that "far away the biggest single factor about our world" is the ending of Western imperialist domination of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This is a controversial thesis, particularly among Marxists and in the face of US military power, but since 1980 the relative rates of growth in output and per capita incomes between the advanced capitalist countries and their former colonies and semi-colonies have reversed dramatically. Although the statistical evidence varies, there is no dispute that in China, the epicentre of this historic change, output over the past three decades has risen from around 5% to 20% of US levels, with the trend having accelerated sharply over the past five years. As Wolf notes, citing Ben Bernanke, "the aggregate real output of emerging economies was 41 per cent higher than at the start of 2005. It was 70 per cent higher in China and about 55 per cent higher in India. But, in the advanced economies, real output was just 5 per cent higher. For emerging countries, the 'great recession' was a blip. For high-income countries, it was calamitous." One can dispute Wolf's attribution of the reversal to the adoption of pro-capitalist policies by China and India, which he sees as driven by the globalization of markets and technology, and he neglects the widening disparities of income which have accompanied the process, but his conclusion is one which is now widely shared: "In the past few centuries, what was once the European and then American periphery became the core of the world economy. Now, the economies that became the periphery are re-emerging as the core. This is transforming the entire world." The overheated Chinese economy may or may not be heading for an imminent bust, but as Wolf also notes, "even world wars and depressions merely interrupted the rise of earlier industrialisers. If we leave aside nuclear war, nothing seems likely to halt the ascent of the big emerging countries, though it may well be delayed." -MG * * * In the grip of a great convergence By Martin Wolf January 4 2011 Convergent incomes and divergent growth – that is the economic story of our times. We are witnessing the reversal of the 19th and early 20th century era of divergent incomes. In that epoch, the peoples of western Europe and their most successful former colonies achieved a huge economic advantage over the rest of humanity. Now it is being reversed more quickly than it emerged. This is inevitable and desirable. But it also creates huge global challenges. In an influential book, Kenneth Pomeranz of the University of California, Irvine, wrote of the “great divergence” between China and the west. He located that divergence in the late 18th and 19th centuries. This is controversial: the late Angus Maddison, doyen of statistical researchers, argued that by 1820 UK output per head was already three times and US output per head twice Chinese levels. Yet of the subsequent far greater divergence there is no doubt whatsoever. By the middle of the 20th century, real incomes per head (measured at purchasing power parity) in China and India had fallen to 5 and 7 per cent of US levels, respectively. Moreover, little had changed by 1980. What had once been the centres of global technology had fallen vastly behind. This divergence is now reversing. That is far and away the biggest single fact about our world. On Maddison’s data, between 1980 and 2008 the ratio of Chinese output per head to that of the US rose from 6 to 22 per cent, while India’s rose from 5 to 10 per cent. Data from the Conference Board’s “total economy database”, computed on a slightly different basis, indicate that the ratio rose from 3 to 19 per cent in China and from 3 to 7 per cent in India between the late 1970s and 2009. The comparisons are uncertain, but the direction of relative change is not. Rapid convergence on the productivity of advanced western economies is not unprecedented in the era following the second world war. Japan was the forerunner, followed by South Korea and a few small east Asian dragon economies – Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan. Japan had already begun to industrialise in the 19th century, with remarkable success. After its defeat in the second world war, it restarted at about a fifth of US output per head, roughly where China is today, to reach 70 per cent in the early 1970s. It attained a peak of close to 90 per cent of US levels in 1990, when its bubble economy burst, bef
