Skip to main content

The Economics of Modern Imperialism

According to Michael Roberts and Guglielmo Carchedi, 

  • imperialism is “a persistent and long-term net appropriation of surplus value by the high-technology imperialist countries from the low-technology dominated countries.”
  • there are “four channels through which surplus value flows to the imperialist countries: currency seigniorage; income flows from capital investments; unequal exchange through trade; and changes in exchange rates.”
  • “modern imperialism does not deny the persistent existence of colonialism. Colonialism and modern imperialism do not exclude each other… Colonialism contains in itself the germs of modern imperialism.”
  • “the trade of the commodities with high technological content produced in the imperialist countries for the capitalistically produced raw materials or industrial goods produced with lower technological content in the dominated countries” results in “unequal exchange.”
  • “under modern imperialism, technology has become the new battlefield.”
  • “military and ideological supremacy is not simply an appendage of economic power. Rather, economic power is determinant because it is the condition of existence of the military and ideological power and the latter is determined because it is the condition of reproduction (or supersession) of the former.”
  • “the inflow of surplus value into the imperialist countries from the rest of the world has helped to slow down the deterioration in output growth and profitability, but has not reversed it.”
  • “the downward movement in profitability is due to the fact that (a) both blocs’ rates of profit fall; (b) the dominated countries’ profitability is persistently above that of the imperialist ones because of their lower OCC; and (c) the dominated countries’ profitability, while persistently higher than in the imperialist countries, falls more than in the imperialist bloc.”
  • “the imperialist bloc has a consistently much higher productivity than the dominated bloc and the gap has tendentially widened from 1950 up to the 2007–8 crisis.”
  • “economic imperialism is a system of international social relations basically founded on long-term technological differentials in which the high technology, high productivity imperialist countries (and thus with higher OCCs [organic composition of capitals]) persistently capture in a variety of ways the surplus value generated in the low-technology and low-OCC dominated countries. Persistent unequal levels of technology are the necessary condition for the persistent appropriation of surplus value.”
  • “due to their technological superiority, some countries are hegemonic or leading in the sense that they impose their policies (economic or otherwise) both on other imperialist countries and on countries of the dominated bloc in order to pursue their own interests.”
  • “the G7 imperialist countries’ stock of investment abroad has persistently outstripped such investment by the larger dominated economies. If China were excluded, the gap would be even larger.”
  • “more recently, Shaikh and Antonopoulos have submitted that ‘the sustainable real exchange rate is that which corresponds to the relative competitive position of a nation, as measured by its relative real unit labor costs’… Broadly speaking, the authors reckon that the DC improve their profitability (competitive position) by lowering their labour costs while the IC do that by raising their productivity.“
  • “is China an imperialist nation? To answer this question, we consider the transfer of surplus value from China to the IC [imperialist countries]. We find that there is a clear transfer of surplus value from China to the IC bloc, averaging 5–10% of China’s GDP since the 1990s. The IC has gained an average of 1% of IC GDP from trade with China… China is not an imperialist country; on the contrary, it clearly fits into the dominated bloc.”
  • “if China increases its capital accumulation more than the US and increases its exports to the US, its balance of trade improves ceteris paribus, but its UE [unequal exchange] worsens because China still has a lower level of productivity. China has increased its capital accumulation more than the US, but it has still not reached the US level of technology… China’s average productivity level is still less than 25% of that of the US.”
  • “for an emerging capitalist nation there is no other way to ‘development’ than by raising productivity through more efficient technologies.”

The Economics of Modern Imperialism

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Qarmatians (Al-Qaramita)

By Nadeem Mahjoub Documentary film-makers G. Troeller and M. C. Defarge once asked a cabinet minister in South Yemen, why socialistic ideas were so readily acceptable in that part of the Arab world. He replied: “Because we have been communists for a thousand years! My mother was Qarmatian.” Official Muslim scholars and clerics, and many so-called moderates (whether individuals or groups) oppose sedition ( fitna ). Tensions and contradictions in society should be solved peacefully and even if the ruler was unjust and impious, it is generally accepted he should still be obeyed, for any kind of order is better than anarchy and sedition. “The tyranny of a sultan for a hundred years causes less damage than one year’s tyranny exercised by the subjects against one another.” Revolt was justified only against a ruler who clearly went against the command of God and His prophet.” 1 Here we look at not what happened in the minds of people who call for calm, oppose dissent and preach the re...
Post a Comment
Read more

Capitalism

Some of this reminds me of how five or six years ago in a class of seven students in a UK elite university three of them (two Germans and one British) were in favour of a "benevolent dictator" (in the Arab context). The bloody horrors of Pinochet showed how capitalism will react when it's threatened
Read more
"If you don't attack the economic power of the elite, soon or later it will attack you." That's what the Arab uprisings, for instance, were unable/failed to do. K for Karl – Revolution (episode 3)
Post a Comment
Read more
"A second position argues against transition, which is transitology itself. It is well known—especially among economists—as the sudden mobilization of a considerable mass of experts who are generally foreigners,generally Western, who come to preach the good word and to propose ready-made models of democracy. The science of the transition has become a financial windfall, a market. And the word transition has of course become a reflex of language, a term of reference, a call for tenders ( appel d’offres ) to which the whole society was supposed to respond.  Consequently, the reticence that one can express is the following: our history is framed, transition is a heteronomy. Every democratic revolution is henceforth supposed to take a unique, imposed path, which is, at the same time, indistinctly democratic and liberal (or neoliberal). A more or less non-“negotiable” package.  It is necessary to highlight the imposed character (and imposed from the outside) of this coming to t...
Post a Comment
Read more
"In the same way that Robinson [Crusoe] was able to ob­tain a sword, we can just as well suppose that [Man] Friday might appear one fine morning with a loaded revolver in his hand, and from then on the whole relationship of violence is reversed: Man Friday gives the orders and Crusoe is obliged  to work. . . . Thus, the revolver triumphs over the sword, and even the most childish believer in axioms will doubtless form the conclusion that violence is not a simple act of will, but needs for its realization certain very concrete preliminary con­ditions, and in particular the implements of violence; and the more highly developed of these implements will carry the day against primitive ones. Moreover, the very fact of the ability to produce such weapons signifies that the producer of highly developed weapons, in everyday speech the arms  manufac­turer, triumphs over the producer of primitive weapons. To put it briefly, the triumph of violence depends upon the pro­duction of a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Varoufakis "speaks of how great it was to have the support of Larry Summers, Norman Lamont, and other figures on the Right, but it was support for whom, for what, and in whose class interests? Class analysis is far from the foreground of the picture sketched out here. Closed rooms and class war
Post a Comment
Read more

US

 Written in June: The candidate who emerged from this jumble of discontent was the man who promised to do the least. His party is now preparing to give us a national election that will be little more than a referendum on the hated Donald Trump. Finally we have a climate in which the American public would unquestionably choose dramatic change were it offered to them, and the party of change has contrived to ensure that it will not be offered. Instead our choice is between two elderly and conservative white men, both with a history of stretching the truth, both with sexual harassment accusations hanging over them, and neither representing any possibility of energetic democratic reform. The old order has been miraculously rescued once again. Such is the climate of opinion in America that, with the right leader, remarkable things would be possible. Instead we are presented with Joe Biden, an affable DC veteran with a hand in many of the defining disasters of the last 30 years: worker-c...
Post a Comment
Read more