Exploitation and super-exploitation in the theory of imperialism v (original) (raw)
Related papers
Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 2018
John Smith's Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century connects the theory of imperialism to Marx's value theory and accounts for the most important changes in global capitalism since Lenin's time: namely, global labor arbitrage and outsourcing. His criticism of the standard statistical measure of GDP and wages is innovative and enlightening, and he effectively connects the global crisis of the early twenty-first century to the new international division of labor. The book suffers from an inadequate definition of its central concept, imperialism, and from a tendency to lapse into old-style deterministic Marxism.
Imperialism and Capitalism: Rethinking an Intimate Relationship
Power and Resistance, 2016
The literature on imperialism suffers from a fundamental confusion about the relationship between capitalism and imperialism. The aim of this paper is to remove this confusion. The paper is organised in three parts. In Part I we state our own position of the capitalismimperialism relation. In part II we discuss some major points at issue in the Marxist debate on imperialism. And in Part III we review the changing forms that imperialism has taken in Latin America in the course of the capitalist development process. The main focus of the paper is on the form taken by imperialism in the current conjuncture of capitalist development, namely extractive capitalism. This conjuncture is characterised by the demise of neoliberalism as an economic model and a growing demand on the world market for energy, minerals and other "natural" resources-the political economy of natural resource development (large-scale investment in the acquisition of land and entailed resources, primary commodity exports). The fundamental dynamics of what we term "extractivist imperialism" are examined in the context of South America, which represents the most advanced but yet regressive form taken to date by capitalism in the new millennium. Our analysis of these dynamics is summarized in the form of twelve theses.
The Contemporary Contours of Imperialism
Monthly Review, 2019
Situated largely within the Marxist debates on imperialism—but addressing the liberal formulations too—The Changing Face of Imperialism: Colonialism to Contemporary Capitalism is an important intervention regarding the material basis of imperialism and its three-hundred-year-old history of unequal power relations. The book broadly addresses five issues: (1) the nature of finance capital and the novel yet familiar processes of value extraction; (2) the world of capital; (3) global production networks and labor regimes; (4) the institutional system of nation-states in the new global order; and (5) the nature of integration from colonial regimes to now.
Superexploitation and the Imperialist Drive of Capitalism
Monthly Review, 2023
Andy Higginbottom analyzes the influence of Ruy Mauro Marini on dependency theory and the concept of superexploitation. Marini, he explains, carried Marx's legacy forward—but there is still work to be done in the twenty-first century.
Imperialism in the 21st century
Global wage differentials, in large measure resulting from suppression of the free movement of labour, provide a distorted reflection of global differences in the rate of exploitation (simply, the difference between the value generated by a worker and what s/he is paid). The southwards shift of production signifies that the profits of firms headquartered in Europe, North America and Japan, the value of all manner of financial assets derived from these profits, and the living standards of the citizens of these nations have become highly dependent on the higher rates of exploitation of workers in so-called ‘emerging nations’. Neoliberal globalisation must therefore be recognised as a new, imperialist stage of capitalist development, where ‘imperialism’ is defined by its economic essence: the exploitation of southern living labour by northern capitalists.
The old and new economics of imperialism
Writing forty years ago in the first volume of the Socialist Register, Hamza Alavi argued that it was necessary to turn to an analysis of a 'new impe- rialism', because the 'end of direct colonial rule … [had] not yet precipitated that final crisis which was to see the end of monopoly ...
A review of Leo Panitch and Sam Gindin, The Making of Global Capitalism: The Political Economy of American Empire (Verso, 2012), £20 As the world commemorates the centenary of the First World War (with limited awareness of its meaning) a book by two leading Marxists that explores contemporary imperialism demands our careful assessment. A century ago there were two broad Marxist approaches to imperialism. Firstly, there was Karl Kautsky's theory of " ultra-imperialism " which suggested the potential for the replacement of rivalry by an alliance of the imperialist countries against subordinate parts of the world. The second approach, the classical Marxist perspective of inter-imperialist rivalry developed by Lenin and Bukharin, argued that competitive capital accumulation produced giant firms that operated increasingly internationally and enlisted their home states in their conflicts with other nations' capitals. The bloodshed and horrors of the war and subsequent decades showed that rivalry provided a superior explanation of international capitalist dynamics. By 1971 Bob Rowthorn noted the emergence of an additional perspective. He argued that a new US super-imperialism had developed in which the US dominated other capitalist powers and had become the " organiser of world capitalism " , able to contain such antagonisms as did appear. 1 Panitch's and Gindin's work sits squarely in this camp, with occasional nods towards ultra-imperialism. Based on earlier collaborative work and an impressive amount of research, The Making of Global Capitalism (henceforth TMGC) provides a comprehensive history of US capitalism and the economic statecraft mobilised to open the global economy to US influence over the last century or so. 2 TMGC's focus is captured in its first two sentences: This book is about globalisation and the state. It shows that the spread of capitalist markets, values and social relationships around the world, far from being an inevitable outcome of inherently expansionist economic tendencies, has depended on the agency of states—and of one state in particular: America. 3 What has emerged from the US state's role in the development of globalised capitalism, including the imposition of US-designed rules for the global economy, is " the American informal empire, which succeeded in integrating all the other capitalist powers into an effective system of coordination under its aegis ". 4 This is not Michael Hardt's and Toni Negri's Empire, within whose post-national space the idea of rival national imperialisms is outdated. 5 Nor does it neatly correspond to the transnationalist perspective developed by Marxists like William Robinson, because neither a transnational capitalist class nor a global state based on the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) is emerging. In the first place, TMGC notes that capital's national roots and institutional linkages remain important, and that US multinational corporations, however international, remain American rather than transnational. 6 Meanwhile, the IFIs were an expression of US postwar power and remain sites of negotiation and coordination between separate " national systems of regulation among the advanced capitalist states ". 7 Nevertheless, TMGC shares with these perspectives the view that US hegemony has so successfully contained conflicts within the West that the idea of inter-imperialist rivalry is no longer helpful. Appearance and essence