[Marxism] the imperialism debate (was Marx’s law of value: a debate between David Harvey and Michael Roberts | Michael Roberts Blog)

Patrick Bond pbond at mail.ngo.za
Thu Apr 19 06:58:49 MDT 2018


A bit delayed, here's my long piece mentioned below:

http://roape.net/2018/04/18/towards-a-broader-theory-of-imperialism/

Towards a Broader Theory of Imperialism

In a major contribution to the on-going debate on imperialism, Patrick 
Bond argues that an explanation of imperialist political-economy and 
geopolitics must incorporate subimperialisms. John Smith’s old-fashioned 
binary of North/South prevents him from fully engaging with David 
Harvey’s overall concern about uneven geographical development

***

Also just out, a view of the bible from Johannesburg:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-70347-3_10

The Unfinished System of Karl Marx pp 299-330

Capital, Volume III—Gaps Seen from South Africa: Marx’s Crisis Theory, 
Luxemburg’s Capitalist/Non-capitalist Relations and Harvey’s Seventeen 
Contradictions of Capitalism

(Let me know if you'd like this offlist - pbond at mail.ngo.za - because 
it's behind a paywall for now.)

On 2018/04/10 02:17 PM, Patrick Bond via Marxism wrote:
> Comrades, hi,
>
> There's another frustrating input in the Smith-Harvey debate over at 
> the Review of African Political Economy website:  "Dissolving Empire: 
> David Harvey, John Smith, and the Migrant" 
> http://roape.net/2018/04/10/dissolving-empire-david-harvey-john-smith-and-the-migrant/ 
>
>
> "Does this mean that China in economic, cultural, social, or military 
> terms has reached the status of an imperialist power?," asks Adam 
> Mayer, who studies Marxism in Nigeria.
>
> Wrong question, hence wrong formulation of the terrain of debate, and 
> wrong answer...
>
> I think the question should be, instead, "aren't China and other BRICS 
> countries slotting into global imperialism as *subimperial* allies, in 
> relation to the accumulation of capital, the super-exploitation of 
> labour, species-threatening ecological destruction and global 
> malgovernance?"
>
> The answer is "Yes!" And there, in the next post, I argue, the problem 
> is immense. (My post ended up drawling on for 8300 words so if anyone 
> wants it, let me know. It'll be online next Monday.)





More information about the Marxism mailing list