[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / klpmm / truebrit / vietnam ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 64558b8ab66296c⋯.jpg (222 KB, 1296x972, 4:3, imperial.jpg)


How fundamental is imperialism to the capitalist New World Order?

Is imperialism something the bourgeoisie MUST engage in? Meaning, without regular imperialist invasions and coups, would the entire global economic system collapse completely?


I'm no expert, but without imperialism, military or economic, it seems to me that capital would eventually run out of places to invest, which would create a crisis of profit, eventually killing capitalism (whether it becomes socialism or reverts to corporate-fascism).



You're framing the question wrong. You can't really ask whether imperialism is "fundamental" to capitalist world order, because in essence imperialism is the capitalist world order. Imperialism isn't a tool or a special form of capitalism, but a developmental stage.


Imperialism is more than just fighting wars for the MIC. It's a McDonalds in every country, it's the "burgerville Dream" sold to everyone, it's Anglos wretching bile over every sort of nigger in the world.


>How fundamental is imperialism to the capitalist New World Order?

imperialism is the current stage of of capitalism, it's not a separate component.

>Is imperialism something the bourgeoisie MUST engage in?

This is not the right question to ask, what you want to know is whether all of the bourgeoisie benefits from current stage of capitalism, and the answer is no, there are also factions of the bourgeoisie that do not benefit from this. In general the the greater the mobility of your capital, the more you can capitalise on it during the imperial stage of capital. The most mobile capital is obviously financial stuff, and the least mobile capital, might be stuff like mines

>Meaning, without regular imperialist invasions and coups, would the entire global economic system collapse completely?

Well that is hard to tell, there are counter veiling tendencies,

the brutal militaristic stuff will likely backfire. 1: Even third rate industrial countries can make nukes and negate invasions. 2 military expenses have enormous opportunity cost, R&D capacity, resource and labor-power is diverted from productive sectors of the economy.

Newly emerging strategy seems to be moving towards just destabilizing regions that do not submit to it. This also will only have a limited shelf-life.

The entire global economic system is not perpetually viable regardless because the planet is full there are no more new markets to expand into, the imperial stage is a symptom of decay. It's not a measure for prolonging, given that more economic resources are wasted on un-productive power-struggle both internally and externally, it's likely going to reduce the ability of the system to reproduce itself.


This >>2891570

Imperialism is just what happens to any growth-based or -promoting system when it runs out of space to grow internally. It's like cancer metastasizing.



Ardent talks a lot about this in Origins of Totalitarianism. Capital needs to be reinvested to other places in order to fulfill the profit seeking activity, and imperialism is a structure that allows them for it since it creates financial institutions to do so. I think she talked about it in the chapter about South Africa.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / klpmm / truebrit / vietnam ]