Subject: Re: marxism and imperialism Date: Mon, 23 Jan 95 14:17:57 +0000 From: wpc-AT-cs.strath.ac.uk I was asked what I thought was wooly about Lenin'seconomics in his pamphlet on imperialism. I will mention several points in no necessarily coherent order. 1. Lenin lays emphasis on the importance of Finance Capital, treated as a new form arising from the merger of bank and industrial capital. In this he was following Hilferding. However, Hilferdings work is more accurate as a description of German and partially French capitalism than it is for British capitalism. The merger of bank and industrial capital never happened in Britain. Since this was the major imperial power at the time, the formation of finance capital can not be treated as a necessary cause of imperialism. 2. The imperialist powers are characterised as being capital exporters. For a country to be a net exporter of capital it must run a trade surplus - as Japan does now. Through most of the late 19th and early 20th centuries Britain ran a trade deficit - and hence was an importer rather than an exporter of surplus value. Hence capital export can not have been a necessary condition of imperialism. 3. He spoke of capital export as arising because capitalism was over-ripe. What did this mean? It is just a propagandistic metaphor. 4. The periodisation of liberal capitalism followed by imperialism is dubious, given that the process of empire growth by France, Britain and Holland went back to the 17th century. ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005