"Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly...If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up "
- you know who
Imperialism has established monopolies vis-a-vis the neo-colonial nations as well as the domestic smaller companies. Though Ulhas seems to be arguing that today some former colonial nations are breaking the international monopolies. Historically, and still significantly, imperialism is generalized elimination of competition, at home and abroad. Domestically one way to do it is cutthroat pricing. Abroad a main way to do it is by just cutting throats.
CB
^^^^^
Paul:
-clip
But if you propose looking at the impact of the North and the South one has to also look at the things that the South never got to do.
The biggest single advantage to the North is the ability to 'set the rules'. When England benefited from having destroyed the advanced-but-still-cottage-style textile production of India it didn't just create an export market. It also foreclosed the eventual development of a potential competitor...so one has to think of all the competition England (and the rest of the "North") never faced. And the subsequent capitalist development that could have emerged from India after that, and so on. [Brenner doesn't argue that India NEVER could have developed capitalism or industry, if given time.] And of course, even in just textiles, this ability to control the timing and pace of changes in the rules goes on and on - for 250 years. Up to and including last month with the TO rules change - and this is just measly textiles. You get to largely control - in multi-decade regimes - when and how the others can get in on production.
And the getting of the rules' is no longer being limited to interstate economic matters. The timing and pace of domestic political formation, military options and most of the other things that shape a nation's destiny are subject to players who may not be thinking of how you can best become a strong competitor.
^^^^^^ CB: In fact, they are probably affirmatively thinking of how to make you a weak competitor.
^^^^
Will Microsoft eventually make money on its version of Internet Explorer launched to crush Netscape? It almost doesn't matter - they eliminated *potential* competition that could have, someday, led to having less of a free hand in more crucial and core areas. So Microsoft "benefited", even if they lost money.
The North's wealth and the South's poverty are linked in many ways.
Paul