I understand how the free trade policies lead to monopoly, and I understand how financial monopolies take over industrial monopolies. But I don't really get the jump from monopolies to imperialism.
I understand how the free trade policies lead to monopoly, and I understand how financial monopolies take over industrial monopolies. But I don't really get the jump from monopolies to imperialism.
Maybe this is an obvious question but why must capital expand?
Parenti says up there that a no growth capitalism is a contradiction. And there’s a lot of talk about degrowth these days, I’m sure he’d feel the same way - a contradiction.
But why are these things contradictions? What would happen if capital did not expand? Like if capital really did stay regional in those New England corporations?
The Short answer: the bourgeois are parasitic sociopaths who do not like having their ambitions limited. If Capital rose at the regional level they would form societies to pressure their regional society at the political/ideological and cultural level to demand expansion to the national level. (buy politicians/buy up media and create cultural content displaying a militaristic outlook celebrating conquest or you know....Lightbearers of Democracy)
Once at the national level they would demand to be able to expand at the international level.
If they were absolutely restricted by expansion you would see Communist revolution break out. Russia for instance had a very weak bourgeois in 1917 and most of the industries in Russia were already captured by British and French capitalists. They could not expand. The Russian people therefore had the only option of to sink further into ruin or take a new weapon at the bourgeoisie
The long answer: Imperialism is not just a policy nor economics nor just politics. It is an entire encompassing system including economics, politics, ideology and culture.
The imperialists believe in a surplus reserve army of labour that is increasingly threatened with homelessness and pauperism. These parasites believe in a society of hierarchy where they are at the top and the vast mass of humanity scrabble in the dirt. Marx explains better:
Marx, Capital, The General Law Of Capital Accumulation, P.798-799
Except for by the time Imperialism came on the scene the bourgeoisie were no longer content with labourers being "mutilated into an appendage of a machine" they were forcing them into trenches to fight other labourers and die by the millions - 125 million dead by counting just ww1 and 2 alone.
Stalin talked about how with the success of the October revolution it smashed part of the ideology in mens minds regarding race superiority which allowed genocides and atrocities that occurred in the colonies to continue
-J V Stalin, The International Character Of the October Revolution, 1927
never stop posting (please)
Thanks com o7
Capital that does not expand gets bought up by capital that does. For example, wrestling was a regional thing in the 20th century. There was no massive brand and televised bouts between dudes in underwear prior to the WWE's rise to the top.
Wrestling promotions that did not expand like the WWE got bought up by them or pushed out by their overwhelming growth. If you wanted to see two top fighters in their promos fight like it was Batman vs Superman, you might never get the chance to. It was rare to cross promos, yet when the McMahon's stepped in you get Superman vs Batman every fuckin week.
I'm sure you see where this is going. In order to make more profits, the McMahon's ate all the wrestling promos they could. When that money ran out, they went worldwide to do shows wherever they can like Saudi Arabia. When that started to run out too they had to take their stars' side money and make them do more shit in their free time to feed the corporate beast.
Google Paige WWE Twitch and you'll get what I mean.
If the economy isn't expanding it means something has disrupted the circulation-reproduction-accumulation cycle of capital and you have an intense crisis on your hands.