Imperialism was inherent in capitalism's expansion

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at
Sun Jun 3 08:14:59 MDT 2001

En relación a Re: Imperialism was inherent in capitalism's expa, el 2
Jun 01, a las 16:53, Carrol Cox dijo:

> The distinguishing feature of Kautsky's thought was the claim that
> imperialism was a policy rather than, as all marxists, whatever
> their other disagreements, hold, the mode of existence of late
> capitalism.

Cox is right here, and I had rather Lou stay at a higher level when
answering to him.

Because, let us see, what has been his "scathing" rebuke. 

He replied to the above by stating that "the distinguishing feature of
Kautsky's thought was that capitalism was a necessary stage for the
countries to go through before they could get to socialism".

When you consider "imperialism" a policy, it is because you believe
there are _other_ possible "capitalist roads". Thus, capitalism is "a
necessary stage", because imperialism is _not_ "the mode of existence
of late capitalism". In the Social Democrat book, capitalism is not
dead as a _progressive_ social force BECAUSE they deny that it has
become (in a sense that differs from what it was two or three
centuries ago) a truly global system without emergency exit.

On the contrary, OUR book says that if you want capitalism today, then
you must have either colonial capitalism or imperialist
capitalism. That is, we say that

(a) imperialism is the mode of existence of late capitalism -the
option can hold only if we think that there is no way for a different
kind of capitalism on this planet of ours, _and_

(b) it is possible (more: there is no alternative way) to step into
socialism without having to traverse the capitalist road.

Sometimes it is hard for me to understand the acidity of some replies
on this list. Honest.

BTW: will send my series of postings on dependency theory soon, and
some of the issues just skimmed here will be broached in a deeper

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list