Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> >> >For such a neo-colonial empire, you don't need Colonel Massus.
> >> >Local colonels do just fine.
> >>
> >> Not if the salaries of local colonels have to be paid for by the
> >> empire, rather than by taxes on the colonized natives.
> >
> >That argument has even more force when turned against colonialism: if you
> >are spending than you are taking in, it's not worth it. And since
> >colonialism costs more, this is an argument for preferring WTO-style
> >neocolonialism. (And for preferring stability to tumult.)
> >
> >This is not to say you can't have an imperialism that's capitalistically
> >irrational. But then by definition it isn't following capitalistic laws.
> >It's following some other kind of logic.
> >
> >Michael
>
> (1) Remember, capitalism socializes production and its
> "externalities" while profits remain privatized. A few capitalists
> manage to benefit from the whole fucking mess out there in the Stan.
Actually, it's never been demonstrated that "nations" (or even _whole_ capitalist classes) benefit from imperialism. That does not mean that imperialism is not necessary to capitalism, but that is a separate question. It's that capitalism _must_ grow whether growth is good for it or not.
It is a mistake, then, to try to determine whether imperialism is "capitalistically irrational," as it would be a mistake to try to determine whether metabolism was rational or irrational. (Best metaphor I could come up with on the fly -- not very good.) Imperialism is a _given_, and the task for the leaders (in and out of govenrment) of an imperialist nation is how best to operate within the constraints established by that given.
Carrol
(Capitalism is irrational, but capitalists rationally try to operate given that irrationality.(