Well, the Scandanavians are rich, and they don't have much in the way of imperialism. The Dutch and the Belgians haven't done badly since they gave up theirs. Whereas it is hard to see what benefits the Brits or even the French get out of continuing to try to be imperial powers. On the contrary, they -- and their ruling classes -- appear to suffer from theese decisions, not least because they must pay for large military establishments. As Wojtek pointed out, the Japanese and the Germans have done scads better as trading powers than as military-imperialial powers.
Part this goes to show that ruling classes do not always choose the imperial path, and part of it suggests than they do not always benefit when they do nor are they harmed when they do not, rather sometimes the reverse. One might also think of the Dragon states of Asia, like Taiwana nd S. Korea, which have done quite well, admittedly with a lot of US patronage, without any imperialism to give up.
Wojtek's bureaucratic
> mistake argument is the
> only alternative to the conclusion that the ruling
> class knows they need to
> subjugate the poor nations.
Micahel, your argument makesthe mistake of treatinga class as if it were an individual, and an individual unlike any other, one which always knows ans acts on its interest. W and I doubt both that the ruling classes of various societies are thus deeply informed, and that it is necessary to their interests to act in the way that you describe. It may be in the perceived interest of politically powerful groups to so act -- if it were not so, presumably it would not happen at all. But even if umperialism is in the interest of some of these groups, it does not follow that it necessary for the reproduction of the system. Maybe it is. But I will nota ccept your argument, which goes like this:
1. All ruling classes under capitalism act imperialistically towards the third world, 2. All ruling classes are unified actors with perfect knowledge of their interests, 3. Unified actors with perfect knowledge of their interests never do anything that is not necessary for their survival as a class 4. Therefore, imperialist actions are necessary for the survival of all ruling classes under capitalsim.
Note taht you have not argued from anything about capitalism or imperialism. You do not refer us to any social features of the system. Rtaher you refer to us imputed believes of a hypothetical class decision maker.
Moreover, although I have constructed the argument so that it is valis, every singe premise is not merely obviosuly false, but quite implausible.
>
> If feel like frickin Alice in Wonderland in here!
> You people are seriously
> proposing that the end of imperialism -- no more
> U.S. military aid/sales,
> closing down our CIA interventions, shutting down
> the IMF and World Bank,
> adopting a neutral policy toward other nations'
> socio-economic choices, and
> ensuring that other G7 powers would not step in and
> seize our imperial
> role -- would not matter to our overclass.
Not at all. We are doubting that it would mean the collapse of capitalism as a system. The bad things to which you refer can be beneficial to capitalism, although it is at least questionable to what extent they are, or any given instance of them, without being essential to it. So it might matter quite a lot, for rational reasons or bad ones, without tolling the doom of the system were these things to end.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree