See the stickied comment below for an explanation and statement of our purpose, based on simple back-of-the-napkin math
E: if someone could please link this community to r/aspen and r/roaringforkvalley I would greatly appreciate it. I’ve been IP banned by the all powerful AI mod monster, like many folks on Lemmy
If you think imperialism was “starting to form” in the 19th century then you have a shit ton of learning to do about imperialism my guy.
I also studied US imperialism nearly exclusively, in university as a fundamental part of my undergrad.
I dont discount the importance of recognizing imperialism, or deny that things are vastly more complex than my highly simplified argument makes it out to be. But its also inarguable that wages around the world are limited significantly by whatever American wages are. We would be exploiting the world to a far less significant degree if our country did not so viciously exploit its own workers. More money in the hands of consumers is more money flowing out and raising wages and standards of living everywhere else just as it does here. Especially at the increased level of movement we are hypothesizing about. And then shit will come down to a million complex interactions happening everywhere around the world. But regardless, we will be sending out far more money that currently is doing literally nothing for anybody
Imperialism as a specific stage in Capitalism, not the general process of international extraction. Earlier forms of Imperialism of course exist, I assumed we all knew what I meant by my statement. Around the turn of the 20th century, bank and industrial Capital had largely monopolized in countries like Britain, France, Germany, and the US, and this monopolistic stage in Capitalism forced territorial division amongst these powers.
Prior to the 20th century, Capitalist development was largely internally driven, and monopolies had not yet formed. It was not possible for a few banks to control entire industries. There was still colonialism, in the traditional sense, but Capitalism had not yet reached the stage Marxists call “Imperialism.”
If you’d like, we can call it “Capitalist Imperialism,” as a separator from prior froms of feudal or mercantilist Imperialism.
Further, your conclusion doesn’t follow. We would exploit the world more if the US remained Capitalist while paying its workers more. Capitalists would retain their profit levels and fund their workers with the fruits of more brutal Imperialism.
I understand what you are saying now, in putting it that way.
I’ll ask a simple question, in your opinion, how is unfettered capitalism in the US hypothetically less exploitative of the rest of the world, the global south, etc, than having moderated capitalism? I do not understand that perspective. Especially in that the US adopting moderated capitalism would hopefully push the world in that direction more largely, given our, admittedly highly imperial, influence?
I would like to better understand why the current system is somehow less exploitative in your view. I would think at worst one could say they would be equally exploitative
Moderated or not, US Capitalism depends on Imperialism, as all highly developed Capitalist systems do. Imperialism becomes an economic necessity for Capitalist countries thay reach the monopolist stage, which itself is an economic compulsion of Capitalism. Social Democracies like the Nordic Countries still practice Imperialism, and not at a lesser degree, just a lesser scale.
Further, that’s even assuming we can moderate the system. All states are dominated by a class, in the US that’s the bourgeoisie. We can’t just say “these are good ideas and are what we want,” the Capitalists have to want it too. That’s why revolution is necessary. Socialism is necessary.
I think there’s a small misunderstanding here. Cowbee is using Lenin’s definition of imperialism, which is different from the commonly understood definition of imperialism. When you say imperialism you likely mean something like “a big country attacking a smaller country”, but that’s not what Lenin (and so also Cowbee) means by it.
Here is a link to Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism if you’d like to read it. Lenin doesn’t ever give a straightforward sentence or two definition of imperialism (at least, I don’t think he does, I could be wrong), but really, for a first approximation understanding of his definition, I would look to the subtitle, that is “The Highest Stage of Capitalism”. For Lenin, imperialism is the name given to the actions of a growing international bourgeoisie during a particular time in history, a time when capitalism is reaching its full power, and thus also, of course, experiencing the full weight of its contradictions.
It’s a good little pamphlet by Lenin, gotta say! I’d recommend reading it at some point if you get the chance!