Re: [Marxism] Imperialism

[Haines Brown <brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> NÃstor Gorojovsky:
> 
> > The very idea that Lenin favored "a theory of direct political
> > domination" instead of "MarxÂs value theory" speaks lots on the
> > ignorance of the commentarist, and nothing on Lenin.
> 
> Marx's value theory explains the dynamics of capitalism from a
> viewpoint which sees capitalists as "character masks", mere
> personifications of capital who are themselves subsumed to the
> movement of competition.  This is the exact opposite of Lenin's
> approach.

I'm having trouble following this. The point about capitalism being an
objective process in which the capitalist is mere TrÃger is obvious -
so obvious that Lenin was obviously aware of it and would unlikely
fall into error.

On the other hand, the above point does not eliminate any subjective
factor, such as when the intentions or efforts of the capitalist do in
fact have some effect on outcomes. The objective/subjective dichotomy
that results is obviously the result of the influence of mechanical
determinism (of positivism). I don't think that objective/subjective
as a reference to opposite categories carries any weight today.

Today there is much interest in probabilistic causality. I'd be more
inclined to suggest that the objective forces constrain the
probability of the various possible outcomes of the capitalist's
subjective decisions. The relation between freedom and determinism
must first be resolved in a satisfactory way before we can throw Marx
into one cubby and Lenin into another, before we force them into our
Procrustean bed of conceptual contradictions.

> Lenin's (mis)understanding of Capital is also undeniably stageist,
> announcing "imperialism" as a "stage" of capitalism distinct from
> the "free competitive capitalism" analyzed by Marx.

Well, you might be right here, except that how one might define stages
is obviously an open question. If it were simply a matter of
socio-economic formations (modes of production), that would be a far
easier issue in principle, for at least we address fundamentally
different kinds of systems. But when it comes to defining stages of
development within a given (capitalist) mode of production, then we
venture into the realm of bourgeois/empiricist notions of
empirically-distinguished stages. If that is your point, then I'm in
agreement.

However, I don't believe this invalidates the _utility_ of speaking of
"phases" in the development of a given system, for there do seem to be
system behaviors that are a function of the system's "age" (what in
Marxist terms we would call the depth of its contradiction). In
practical (empirical) terms, it does make sense to distinguish a young
system, a mature system and an aged system (one where contradictions
are very deep).

Perhaps the difference between Marx and Lenin here is that Marx was
really speaking of socio-economic stages, while what Lenin had in mind
was the phases of capitalist development. The former is part of a
scientific approach we speak of as historical materialism, while the
latter is _useful_ in practical terms for devising suitable policy -
more a kind of social engineering than a social science.

To pursue this line of thought, I'd have to know what Russian word
Lenin used when referring to the imperialist "stage" of capitalism,
and then see if the word in Russian implies a break between kinds of
systems or a development within a given system. Sorry, I'm not up to
this task. Perhaps someone with some expertise will offer a reply.

Haines Brown

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism