friedrich list, PROPHET OF NATIONAL POWER - of LDCs - Less Developed Countries

Charles Brown CharlesB at
Sat Sep 26 17:22:32 PDT 1998

I think Louis is referring to Lenin's analysis of a new phase of capitalist development at the end of the 1800's , which he called imperialism after Hobson or someone else. Of course there was capitalist colonialism before that (and empires before that) but Marxism now reserves the term "imperialism" for state-monopoly, export of capital, financial oligarchy, tendency to general war, and other characterisitcs pinpointed by Lenin.

Charles Brown

>From the market to the Marxit

>>> Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari at phoenix.Princeton.EDU> 09/26 3:03 PM >>>
In response to Louis P, I cite Roman Szporluk:

In List's analysis of the relations between the nations of the 'temperate zone' (which included europe and norht america) and those of what he called the 'torrid zone' of the globe, the idea of equality of nations was absent...."the mfg power especially prospers, by means of which the nation not merely attains to the highest degree of mental and social development and of political power, but is also enabled to make the countries of tropical climates and of interior civilization tributatry in a certain measure to itelf. The countries of the temperate zone therefore are above all others called upon to bring their own national division of labor to the highest perfection,a nd to use the international division of labor for their enrichment." (List)Upon this premise, List demanded that England stop trying to exclude the large nations of Europe from joining in the growing trade between the North and South. p.126 of Communism and Nationalism.

Louis writes:

> This is hopelessly ahistorical. List died in 1846, well before imperialism
> was understood in Marxist terms. Perhaps Rakesh wants to use a non-Marxist
> definition of imperialism to go along with his non-Marxist definition of
> fascism. Why not go all the way.

Proyect should refer himself to Marx's analysis of how the advanced capitalist countries had already set up an international division of labor suited to themselves. Perhaps that's a historical too and a non Marxist definition. Too bad it's in Vol I of Capital, circa 1867.


More information about the lbo-talk mailing list