Michael Dawson wrote:
>
> Luke's amazing beliefs:
>
>
> 3. Rich capitalist countries are not dependent on super-exploiting the poor
> ones.
>
There are complications on this one. _Some_ elements of capital in the rich capitalist countries are dependent on the exploitation of poor ones. ("Super-exploitation" certainly exists, but technical senses and moral attitudes are apt to get mixed up here.) The question of whether "countries" benefit or suffer is also possibly misleading. The growth of British capital entailed the deaths of millions or 10s of millions in India, but it also (as Marx quoting a factory inspector pointed out) entailed the destruction of a whole generation of the british working class. The _exploitation_ was of the british workers, and the _realization_ of the value created involved the destruction of vast numbers in India and China.
The extant marxist interpretations of imperialism are the best explanaitions we have, but their weaknesses or rather incompletenesses are one source of the flourishing of such piffle as _Empire_.
Capitalism _means_ imperialism, but our understanding of that unity is still unsatisfactory. (Though I think Wood in her last book has pushed udnerstanding ahead.)
Carrol