Butchering the definition, imperialism is the monopolist stage of capitalism, specifically the monopoly of finance capital. This can be expanded but there is no point in doing so here.
The monopoly on finance capital is already formed by a cartel of mostly american+european financial institutions and so on. These countries are what we call imperialist, we do not call Russia imperialist simply because they do not have this monopoly and are actively fighting against it, their future ambitions are a story for another day.
Let’s say that somehow the cartel completely disappeared and banks were to start from zero again, a bunch of local banks would emerge all around the world. As time went on, the most efficient banks would inevitably best its competitors, consolidate their position and gain increasingly more market share, until it becomes a local monopoly, then they go global and the process repeats until a global monopoly is formed, this is what happens on every single industry.
This is an inevitable outcome of capitalism simply due the nature of capital growing, capital stagnates when it faces competition so capitalists inevitably organize into cartels to consolidate a monopoly. The only way to do some sort of “checked capitalism” is to completely strip capitalists off political power through a violent revolution, like China did.
When Cowbee says that capitalism decays and leads into imperialism this is what i think he means, and he is right.
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
The global south is imperialized. The most they can do is become nationalist and kick out imperialists, they can’t really become imperialist themselves. They would if they could. Assuming, of course, they don’t become socialist in the process of kicking out the imperialists.
If I say you need enough heat, fuel, and oxygen to start a fire, and you say if you don’t have heat you don’t have fire, I’m still correct. I have never once said that the global south is imperialist, I said the opposite.
Yes you claimed that the global south which you are claiming is liberal and is also not engaging in imperialism so by your own logic most nations that are liberal are not engaging in these actions.
Your whole argument rests on that essentially flawed notion.
Why do you make that claim when it has not proven to be true fir almost all capitalist nations?
Butchering the definition, imperialism is the monopolist stage of capitalism, specifically the monopoly of finance capital. This can be expanded but there is no point in doing so here.
The monopoly on finance capital is already formed by a cartel of mostly american+european financial institutions and so on. These countries are what we call imperialist, we do not call Russia imperialist simply because they do not have this monopoly and are actively fighting against it, their future ambitions are a story for another day.
Let’s say that somehow the cartel completely disappeared and banks were to start from zero again, a bunch of local banks would emerge all around the world. As time went on, the most efficient banks would inevitably best its competitors, consolidate their position and gain increasingly more market share, until it becomes a local monopoly, then they go global and the process repeats until a global monopoly is formed, this is what happens on every single industry.
This is an inevitable outcome of capitalism simply due the nature of capital growing, capital stagnates when it faces competition so capitalists inevitably organize into cartels to consolidate a monopoly. The only way to do some sort of “checked capitalism” is to completely strip capitalists off political power through a violent revolution, like China did.
When Cowbee says that capitalism decays and leads into imperialism this is what i think he means, and he is right.
Pretty much exactly what I am trying to say, even down to explaining that if the imperialist countries collapsed overnight, the remaining capitalist countries would try to re-assert themselves as the new imperialists. Very well said!
That’s a nice comment. Too bad QuoVadisHomines will never see it since sh.itjust.works has defederated lemmygrad.
Did they really? Lmao nothing of value was lost.
It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.
Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited, so you end up with nationalist countries that aren’t imperialist because there’s nothing left to imperialize, but this stays at a crossroads where imperialist countries threaten you into opening up your capital markets to be imperialized.
If it has not happened in most cases you cannot observe a trend because that trend is not actually occurring. Your whole claim starts off flawed.
It’s happened in all possible cases, where do you think it hasn’t happened?
Most capitalist nations are not engaging in imperialism especially those in the global south.
Reread my comment:
The global south is imperialized. The most they can do is become nationalist and kick out imperialists, they can’t really become imperialist themselves. They would if they could. Assuming, of course, they don’t become socialist in the process of kicking out the imperialists.
So it would be the case if it were the case but it is not the case and you are still somehow correct?
That makes no sense. Thus it isn’t happening in most nations and your claim is fraudulent.
If I say you need enough heat, fuel, and oxygen to start a fire, and you say if you don’t have heat you don’t have fire, I’m still correct. I have never once said that the global south is imperialist, I said the opposite.
Yes you claimed that the global south which you are claiming is liberal and is also not engaging in imperialism so by your own logic most nations that are liberal are not engaging in these actions.
Your whole argument rests on that essentially flawed notion.