Charles answers: >> If I understand you, by mechanical I mean imperialism evolving into world peace and socialism without a conscious mass "act" ... by the working class. ...<<
right. but that's not in the quote. Kautsky simply referred to the possibility of ultraimperialism, rather than to the possibility of socialism.
JD: >(1) I wouldn't say that the "intense, anarchic struggle between rival national stage groups of financiers" was simply amongst financiers. Lenin's model seems to apply best to continental Europe. But that's not a very important issue for now.<
CB: >>Yes. Actually, the full idea of Imperialism is "the merger or coalescence of banking with industry -this is the history of the rise of finance capital and gives the term "finance capital" its content" <<
actually, I was thinking about Lenin's defn, but I don't want to get into a debate. If one thinks of a manufacturing corporation as a financial organization (as strictly speaking it is), there's not much to debate. But I think old Vlad, like Hilferding before him, generalized a bit too much from the continental Europe of their day.
JD: >(2) I don't think the struggle abated until about 1945.<
CB: >>I agree with this. I wouldn't say ultra-imperialism phase of imperialism emerges ntil 1985-90. It gets unexpected new "reserves" with the collapse of European socialism. In 1945, Lenin-Bukharin phase is fully operative.<<
I don't know exactly what you're talking about. (This seems to be the main point of disagreement in this exchange.) After 1990, there seems to be more disagreement amongst the leading powers than in previous decades.
JD: > The struggle shifted from the military arena after World War I, over into the international-trade arena, in the form of competitive protectionism (trade blocks and the like). This in turn encouraged the 1929-33 international collapse, just as the pre-1914 struggle encouraged WW1. The _form_ of the competition changed, not the reality of it. (..) The international competition encouraged WW2, also, though I think that Hitler and his boys added new dimensions to the disaster (to say the least).<
CB: >>Do you have a cite for Bukharin's book ? <<
I don't have my copy (Monthly Review Press edition), but our library has the following citation: Bukharin, Nikolai Ivanovich, Imperialism and world economy. With an introd. by V. I. Lenin. New York, H. Fertig, 1967.
It's in the intro by Lenin that he states that B's book is better.
CB: >>I would say WWII is well predicted by Lenin's theory of imperialism, so I agree. Also, destruction of the SU was the main thing the finance capitalists wanted from the Nazis. Actually, one thing the Nazis did out of line with the plan was to attack France and England first or interimperialsit rivalry took precedence over anti-communist consensus.<<
I doubt that finance capital wanted the mass slaughter of Jews, Gypsies, gays, commies, laborites, social dems, etc.
... CB: >>It may be out of fashion to say but, a general crisis for imperialism. That general crisis has been temporarily abated, especially based on new markets in former European socialism, removal of barriers to non-European countries by Cold War/national liberation movements.<<
what is your theory of crisis?
... CB: >>Also, there is a kind of faux peace now, as I think you imply. The extraordinary discrepancy between military forces of imperialism and the neo-colonies, in part created by the extraordinary build up for the Cold War by imperialism, has the ultra-war machine turning into its opposite: Pox Americana. But here is a point to really distinguish from the main old Kautsky theory and error: at best this relative "peace" is sitting in an eye of the world war storm. In other words, this peace won't last. We need revolution.<<
I think there's also a problem that I didn't note: the US and several other powers are trying to balance trade by exporting arms to what used to be called the "third world." (High-tech fighter planes in Latin America? Coming right up!)
CB: >>Also, as Lenin noted that imperialism increased the division or socialization of labor laying the ground for socialism, we might even say that ultra-imperialism lays some of the foundation for communism, with world government etc. But it won't occur mechnically or evolutionarily either. ...<<
right.
Jim Devine jdevine at popmail.lmu.edu & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Departments/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.