>While capitalism is necessarily imperialist, there is no reason
>why there could not be non-capitalist forms of imperialism,
>and in fact we see these in history
1. Non-capitalist states in the modern world may seek to aggrandize their territories, but in that case their expansion assumes a character qualitatively different from imperialism driven by M-C-M'. The expansion of the USSR's sphere of influence was mainly motivated by security concerns &, on the whole, financially a losing proposition for the Soviet elite & masses alike; aside from the danger of provoking capitalist states' reaction, prohibitive expenses alone made the Soviet elite often disinclined to support socialists elsewhere, unless conditions were really promising. The post-revolutionary Soviet elite wanted to have friendly states, and as long as states were friendly to them, it didn't matter to them whether they were socialist or nationalist or even imperialist. In other words, territorial expansion was neither economically necessary nor desirable for the USSR; the USSR would have been richer if it had not supported Cuba, to take just one example. In short, the USSR was never as internationalist as many socialists elsewhere -- especially in the Third World -- wanted it to be.
2. Pre-capitalist empires' expansion was, it seems to me, primarily motivated by the desire to extract tributes _politically_ & to dump excess population on newly conquered land (which was an essential concern in a predominantly agricultural system of production).
3. In _advanced_ capitalism = imperialism, dumping excess population ceases to be a concern; to the contrary, the relative surplus population flows from poor to rich & imperial nations, thus 3 is unlike 2. Imperialism does not politically extract "tributes" to enrich imperial _states_, again, unlike 2; instead, it helps the ruling class at the core & the periphery exploit workers everywhere (the expenses of doing so are borne by workers at the core). Unlike 1, capitalism _cannot_ allow too many states to cease to be capitalist & opt out of the capitalist world economy; if it did, its ability to reproduce itself would weaken. As a thought experiment, imagine capitalism trying to survive just in rich nations, the rest of the world having become socialist. That will likely bring about a huge economic & political crisis.
>In the case of (2), much depends on the definition of
>_socialism_. If socialism is "the ownership or control of
>the means of production by the working class, or by the
>people in general", then positive State power is unnecessary
>to it; all that is being called for is that which the petit
>bourgeois already enjoy, possession of one's tools and more
>or less unimpeded access to the resources necessary for
>production.
If the ruling class and its non-ruling class supporters peacefully accept the transition to socialism, & if everyone, uncompelled by state power, immediately begins to observe rules of peaceful social intercourse according to communist principles, the state is practically unnecessary. That, however, has not & will not happen.
Yoshie