On the simplest level, though I am no expert, I suppose Marx and Lenin understood imperialism as one more developed country using force in another to extract raw materials for a song, exploit cheap labor, & seize property. Or competing with other developed countries to do so. You believe what your eyes plainly see.
Capital could be accumulated in such a setting. Alternatively, it might be accumulated in conditions more beneficial to the colony's inhabitants. In either case, it need not be accumulated by anyone in the colony's indigenous population.
The U.S. runs a trade deficit. This means foreigners accumulate claims to U.S. dollar-denominated assets. (It says nothing about whether the stock of such assets is growing or declining.) So foreigners receiving pounds does not mean they are being exploited by the U.K. -- quite the opposite is more likely.
You could say that by buying more than it sells, the U.S. is exploiting the rest of the world, denying it capital. Alternatively, if the U.S. ran a trade surplus with, say, Indonesia (it may, for all I know), we could say Americans are accumulating ownership in Indonesian assets. That doesn't sound good either.
So I would come back to the simplest issues as being the most important. What are the conditions of the working class and peasantry? What are they giving up in terms of labor, and what are they getting in return as income? What is the state of their wealth? What is happening to the public property of the indigenous population - so-called "natural capital"? The use of external force, in the form of special bodies of armed men, to impose negative consequences in these dimensions is what I would call imperialism. They might be wearing hats that say "United Nations," but the facts on the ground are what matter. Alternatively, the use of market power, especially in finance (i.e., creditors' or buyers' cartels, both private and 'public institutions'), to bring about those negative consequences is also a form of imperialism.
None of this matters because the Bible says that when Nathan Newman quotes Lenin, it's a Sign of the Apocalypse.
mbs
-----Original Message----- From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of John Mage Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:44 AM To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Subject: Re: Nathan and Imperialsim
Ulhas wrote:
> I am not sure how Carrol Cox sees the connection between imperialism and
> growth. But it's common knowledge that the US economy is seen as an engine
> of growth, particularly in east and south east Asia. The US current
account
> deficit ($ 500 bn per year?) is stimulating capital accumulation in other
> parts of the world. China and Japan are the most important beneficiaries
of
> this process. Where is the basis for anti-imperialism?
This is by itself meaningless. As you know, Great Britain ran an enormous current account deficit vis-a-vis India in the last decade of the raj, leading to a massive Indian capital accumulation (in pounds, which Keynes saw to it were blocked). In that case it was a sign of the imperialist relationship - the ability to run a massive current account deficit paid for by printing pounds. There is some similarity with the US today. But to say anything interesting you would have to go way beyond this sound bite about the current account deficit. The basis (no pun) for anti-imperialism in Japan is crystal clear in - say - Okinawa.
john mage