Re: Foster-Panitch debate on the relevance of "imperialism"

["Tom O'Lincoln" <suarsos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Haven't had time to absorb the new posts on this property, but I wanted to
say it is an important topic. There are some other people who seriously
question where there is such as thing as imperialism, eg a small but
sophisticated current led by Nigel Harris, ex-member of the British SWP and
quite a serious writer. He is supporter by a couple of Australian
academics, Andrew Milner and David Lockwood.

Whenever I read them I feel they ask serious questions, and I tend to agree
that the concept is poorly theorised. Despite that, I've gone right on
talking about imperialism, because what the hell else do you call it when
America trashes Iraq in order to control oil and restructure a whole
regional strategically? And I keep promising myself to try to theorise the
whole matter better... but I haven't got around to it yet. :-)

BTW in passing Lou makes a derisory comment about some of us who posted
articles about whether there is "super-exploitation" of labour in the 3d
World:

<<To paraphrase Keynes, you will be dead-- but in the short run.
There is no greater form of exploitation than early death,
inadequate food, shelter or medical care.<<

In that case, there was super-cxploitation in the old stone age. Personally
I think it's more scientific to see exploitation as Marx does, in terms of
the extraction of surplus value.