Imperialism was inherent in capitalism's expansion

Louis Proyect lnp3 at
Sat Jun 2 15:50:26 MDT 2001

>This is of course true -- but it only names what needs to be explained,
>and names are not in themselves an explanation. All it really says is
>that imperialism causes imperialism: we are in an endless loop. _Why_ is
>imperialism inherent in capitalism but only an option in other modes of
>production? And at what point did it become inherent rather than an

Autumn, 1512.

>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.

No, 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. Do not pass go--go directly to jail. This was the point of Colin
Leys' 1978 Socialist Register I commented on. Comrade Leys was all
googly-eyed over the rise of the Kenyan bourgeoisie in the laundry and
hotel and coffee sectors of the economy. He likened this to Marx's
description of the rise of the industrial bourgeoisie in ch. 21 of V. 1 of
Capital. Comrade Leys said that he came to this analysis after reading Bill
Warren and Robert Brenner. Case closed.

>In Amin, of course, this perspective grounds a "Maoist" theory of world
>revolution, of surrounding the "cities" from the "countryside."

Are you sure that you don't mean "Moist"? I think that George W. Bush
should definitely get a bucket of water dumped on his head.

Louis Proyect
Marxism mailing list:

More information about the Marxism mailing list