Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 12:23:21 +0200
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za>
Subject: AUT: Imperialism (Explications of The Savage Anomaly)


This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to 
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to 
properly handle MIME multipart messages.


Chris

I do not find any of the arguments for empire that I have seen very convincing. I must admit to only having read the first 100 pages or so of Empire before getting bored with it. But I see no sign of the nation state as capital's locus of power diminishing in importance. I don't believe that this can happen either short of worldwide revolution. If anything, recent events have reinforced this view.

So I stick with a version of imperialism. My version is both similar and different to the Leninist one. It is similar in certain respects (e.g. the centrality of export of capital). But where I differ most fundamentally is on the question of the "highest stage". It is impossible to say that capitalism has reached its highest stage or even to definitively separate one stage from another. The debate going on as to whether the stage of real domination was completed in Marx's time or whether it is still not completed now(my view) should demonstrate this problem of stages. I see imperialism as an inherent aspect of capitalism and - this is crucial - one that cannot be eradicated without eradicating capital itself. If you see it as an aspect rather than a stage then you reject the nonsense that about 90% of the left (including me) bought into in the 20thC, namely that you could aim as an interim stage for a non-imperialist but capitalist world, Samir Amin's 'polycentric world', for example. It seems to me that this whole notion of imperialism was more of a strategy than a true theory, i.e. to forge an alliance with nationalist movements, and especially to rationalise the semi-autarkic development model of the SU and China.

BTW has anyone tried to prove that there was ever a stage of capitalism that did not involve export of capital? I would find such a capitalism very hard to imagine, especially in the light of the importance of colonial regions such as Africa, America and India in the very earliest stages of capitalism. It seems to me that the best thing that you could show is that this tendency of capital to circulate globally in search of valorisation opportunities is one that surges at certain points in history, but that it is always there. It is very easy I suppose to take one of these surges as a 'stage', especially if you are mechanistic and scientistic thinker like Lenin.

Tahir

>>> cwright-AT-21stcentury.net 10/16/02 04:35PM >>>
Tahir,

Hey, I hope you don't mean me :)  I am quite convinced that imperialism is a
dead dog, and I have come to grasp, only recently, that imperialism always
was, in a sense, a dead dog theoretically.  I did argue in favor of it for a
long time, but mostly because I found Negri's idea of empire lacking and the
notion that the nationa state is somehow facing an critical, if not
absolute, loss of sovereignty unsustainable.  It was more of a "I don't have
a reasonable other way to think through the problem so I am sticking with
this ugly, warty gimp who barely hobbles as a theory."  However, the idea
that sovereignty exists on a level of international expression which it
never had before, indeed I agree.  I just am not sure exactly what it all
means at the moment, and that is why I value Empire, because Negri raises
all the important questions.

I think you might find folks in Edinburgh who feel roughly the same.

Cheers,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za>
To: <aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: Explications of The Savage Anomaly




>>> nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com 10/15/02 07:01PM >>>
Now, perhaps the believers in the 'theory of imperialism'
in Chicago, Edinburgh, and Cambridge (the three places I've had the most
contact with folks like that) are particularly thick headed, undemocratic
and boring. I doubt it, but none the less my experiences w/ these folks has
definitely turned me off to the folks they like to quote


Which theory of imperialism is this exactly? Any theory of imperialism?
Tahir




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT: 8pt MS Sans Serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px; MARGIN-TOP: 2px">
<DIV><FONT size=1>Chris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>I do not find any of the arguments for empire that I have seen 
very convincing. I must admit to only having read the first 100 pages or so of 
Empire before getting bored with it. But I see no sign of the nation state as 
capital's locus of power diminishing in importance. I don't believe that this 
can happen either short of worldwide revolution. If anything, recent events have 
reinforced this view.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>So I stick with a version of imperialism. My version is both 
similar and different to the Leninist one. It is similar in certain respects 
(e.g. the centrality of export of capital). But where I differ most 
fundamentally is on the question of the "highest stage". It is impossible to say 
that capitalism has reached its highest stage or even to definitively separate 
one stage from another. The debate going on as to whether the stage of real 
domination was completed in Marx's time or whether it is still not completed 
now(my view) should demonstrate this problem of stages. I see imperialism as an 
inherent aspect of capitalism and - this is crucial - one that cannot be 
eradicated without eradicating capital itself. If you see it as an aspect rather 
than a stage then you reject the nonsense that about 90% of the left (including 
me) bought into in the 20thC, namely that you could aim as an interim stage for 
a non-imperialist but capitalist world, Samir Amin's 'polycentric world', for 
example. It seems to me that this whole notion of imperialism was more of a 
strategy than a true theory, i.e. to forge an alliance with nationalist 
movements, and especially to rationalise the semi-autarkic development model of 
the SU and China.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>BTW has anyone tried to prove that there was ever a stage of 
capitalism that did not involve export of capital? I would find such a 
capitalism very hard to imagine, especially in the light of the importance of 
colonial regions such as Africa, America and India in the very earliest stages 
of capitalism. It seems to me that the best thing that you could show is that 
this tendency of capital to circulate globally in search of valorisation 
opportunities is one that surges at certain points in history, but that 
it is always there. It is very easy I suppose to take one of these surges 
as a 'stage', especially if you are mechanistic and scientistic thinker like 
Lenin.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Tahir</FONT><BR><BR>>>> cwright-AT-21stcentury.net 
10/16/02 04:35PM >>><BR>Tahir,<BR><BR>Hey, I hope you don't mean me 
:)  I am quite convinced that imperialism is a<BR>dead dog, and I have come 
to grasp, only recently, that imperialism always<BR>was, in a sense, a dead dog 
theoretically.  I did argue in favor of it for a<BR>long time, but mostly 
because I found Negri's idea of empire lacking and the<BR>notion that the 
nationa state is somehow facing an critical, if not<BR>absolute, loss of 
sovereignty unsustainable.  It was more of a "I don't have<BR>a reasonable 
other way to think through the problem so I am sticking with<BR>this ugly, warty 
gimp who barely hobbles as a theory."  However, the idea<BR>that 
sovereignty exists on a level of international expression which it<BR>never had 
before, indeed I agree.  I just am not sure exactly what it all<BR>means at 
the moment, and that is why I value Empire, because Negri raises<BR>all the 
important questions.<BR><BR>I think you might find folks in Edinburgh who feel 
roughly the same.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>Chris<BR>----- Original Message 
-----<BR>From: "Tahir Wood" <twood-AT-uwc.ac.za><BR>To: 
<aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu><BR>Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 
2002 2:01 AM<BR>Subject: Re: AUT: Explications of The Savage 
Anomaly<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>>>> nateholdren-AT-hotmail.com 10/15/02 07:01PM 
>>><BR>Now, perhaps the believers in the 'theory of imperialism'<BR>in 
Chicago, Edinburgh, and Cambridge (the three places I've had the most<BR>contact 
with folks like that) are particularly thick headed, undemocratic<BR>and boring. 
I doubt it, but none the less my experiences w/ these folks has<BR>definitely 
turned me off to the folks they like to quote<BR><BR><BR>Which theory of 
imperialism is this exactly? Any theory of 
imperialism?<BR>Tahir<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>     --- from list 
aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---