(U.S.) Imperialism

Great Debates
21

Boy, you got that right! :smiley:

I wanted to put that quote from Conquest up, because I had read it a few months ago and thought it interesting, but I didn’t want to leave the article hanging. I figured that if I had posted an article that I thought was interesting and someone said that from skimming it it looked like shi*, I would have been honored that she planned to consider it anyway even though she felt it had no face validity. The Golden Rule always gets me into trouble.

Anyway, I did not imply that capitalism is not motivated by the profit motive. Let me reprint the quote I took issue with for reference:

This is simply a mischaracterization, at best. I’ve read similar remarks in some Communist literature, in John Weeks’ Capital and Exploitation, for example. Every time it is stated without much explanation or proof, so it is hard to even put it into a frame of reference in order to take a good look at it.

Capitalism is motivated by profit. It does not, however, have expansion as a central imperative. It seems natural that if your business is doing well, you would want it to grow by gaining more market share, moving into new markets, or offering new & different products. But that seems more an aspect of the human condition, rather than a necessary component of a capitalist enterprise.

Parenti’s proof, such as it is, that expansion is a necessary component of capitalism is that investors invest to get back more than they put in. Notice his language: investors “extract” money from the firm. He seems to be caught in the class-warfare dogma. Let’s leave that aside for now. Surely investors will not put money into a business from which they expect to get back less than they put in. But this does not imply that a firm must constantly expand to pay back the investors. To illustrate this, consider a simple model of pricing common stocks. The discounted-cash-flow model simply holds that the value of a stock is equal to the value of the future dividend stream discounted back to the present time. (Discounting is adjusting the value of some amount in the future to what it “should” be worth today.) That is, the dividends for this year, plus next year (discounted), plus the next year (discounted) on to infinity is the value of the stock. The value of the stock then depends on the profitability of the company, but not its propensity for expansion. So a firm that never expands (it will have to invest some for upkeep) can still be an attractive investment choice if it makes a profit (and therefore pays dividends).

Of course, growth opportunities can and should be figured into the value of a stock. See, for example, Brealy & Myers “Principles of Corporate Finance” for more on stock pricing and discounting.

Regardless, the idea that fruitful investment requires constant expansion of the enterprise is simply unfounded. That’s not to say that the market is a rough place where jostling for position is often important–merely that expansion is not a necessary condition for capitalist enterprise.

Parenti states further that “one must always invest to realize profits.” It is hard to see where this is coming from. I wish he had more argument and explanation behind this. It sounds like the sort of remark I alluded to earlier, e.g. Weeks’ book. So let me address something that will hopefully clear this up. Communist theory in general is predicated on an important assumption: the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value, put simplistically (but not too inaccurately), tells us that labor should be paid the value of the average output. That makes sense, right? Ten workers make ten widgets valued at $1 apiece, therefore each worker should make a dollar.

But if the $10 goes to the workers, how does the capitalist survive? By exploiting the worker, paying him less than he deserves. That is the root of class warfare, at least between the capitalist and the worker.

The problem here is that the labor theory of value tries to solve a calculus problem using arithmetic. Like Zeno who tried to solve calculus problems using geometry, confusion can obtain when not using this imporant mathematical tool. A way to consider the problem is that first, the market sets the price and increased output leads to decreased price (generally), and second that output will often exhibit diminishing returns to increases in one onput, labor in this case. These tendencies will bring down the marginal value produced by labor. (Marginal being the last unit of whatever you’re dealing with.) With a decreasing marginal value product, a mathematical artifact is that the average value product is more than the marginal.

The thing is that when I work, the value that I actually bring to the company is my marginal value product–not the average of everybody working. That’s what everybody brings: his marginal product. (Surely there is some interesting philosophical ground here, but I’m going to avoid that at all costs.) If the value I create is my marginal value product, the the payment I deserve is equal to that. Everybody gets paid what they’re “worth.”

But, what about the money left over? If the marginal value product of labor is less than the average, and if everybody gets paid their marginal value product, then there must be money left over. It turns out that this value “left over” is the value that the other major input has earned, that input being capital. Indeed, if you flip the problem around and look at the marginal value of capital and pay it its marginal value, then there is money left over–money that labor has earned. This money going to capital is what, in a very non-economic sense, profit. It is the money that goes to the investors. Do you follow me? The company, without any need to expand, can pay back the investors (in the form of an income stream) the money that it borrowed! The need to expand to make profits is a fiction.

Now granted, the real world is sloppy and not so easy to see. That’s why we have models. Business compete for place and markets and whatnot, but none of that implies that perpetual expansion is a necessary component of the capitalist enterprise.

That, dear Chula, is why the passage mentioned is bunk.

Parenti goes on to use an example as proof of capitalism’s need for expansion. Let me note that capitalism is a big affair, encompassing many people of many backgrounds and many moral standings. That myriad examples of reprehensible behavior exists is not an indictment of capitalism, simply because in any institution that large there are going to be lots of abuses. Does Parenti prove that capitalism is as bad as he says it is in the article? I surely don’t care. His basic understanding of capitalism is so flawed that anything he has to add is of little concern to me. I was going to take a closer look at it, but after certain reactions it simply doesn’t seem worth the effort.:wink:

-jsh

22

Every single post Chumpsky has written has been political in nature, with most of them focussing on the evils of American imperialism/capitalism. Even I was surprised when I went through his profile. He is the epitome of the one-trick pony, with a saving grace that at least he is far more articulate than his pony brethren, though no less single-minded.

It’s when he drops preposterous facts that my sarcasm-o-matic jumps to maximum, and he did invite us to “point out flaws in the Parenti essay, or anything I have written”. Here’s a flaw: Yugoslavia is an exercise in American imperialism? HA! If that were true, why haven’t the Americans done what imperialists have always historically done: annex the conquered territory?

I’m not sure building a Starbuck’s should count as “imperialism”, or if it does, than the word “imperialism” loses all negative meaning, since I’d be hard-pressed to equate selling people coffee with the “rape, pillage and plunder” of olden days. Chumpsky seems to think that selling people coffee does count as a form of slavery and it’s this inability to make distinctions that I find the most humourous.

And also kinda sad.

23

Jeez, Bryan read the ffing post again and the re-post.

24

From the essay linked to in the OP:

Here’s a major flaw. The cited territory, Puerto Rico, has had repeated referendums on whether or not to retain commonwealth status, become the 51st state, or declare independence. The Puerto Ricans decided to remain with the status quo on every occasion.

To imply that Puerto Rico continues to be exploited in an imperialistic sense, as the author does, is completely false.

25

I did Why even mention Starbuck’s and Euro-Disney in a thread about imperialism except that Chumpsky can’t resist grinding his little anti-corporate axe?

Actually, the original post has a much bigger flaw, seen when he expresses admiration for the masses (they have tendencies “toward egalitarianism, respect for human rights and the environment”) and contempt for them (calling them “atoms of consumption” twice) in the same paragraph.

Evidently the masses are okay when they agree with Chumpsky (i.e. they wish to overthrow the corporate elite), and mindless drones when they don’t (i.e. they would rather sit in their homes and watch sports).

And there a lot more than 10 corporations, by the way. If you’re going to wildly exagerate, at least do so with a smile.

26

Got some cites for that assertion?

27

I’m surpsied the CIA had time, what with inventing AIDS and crack and everything.

28

js_africanus:

I’ve not had a chance to read the linked article (yet), but in the spirit of open critical investigation, I’d like to point out a couple of mistakes in the chain of your argument. You react to the following statement by Parenti: ”A central imperative of capitalism is expansion.” In your response, your write:

So far, so good, but then you continue:

…and by this point, you have also neatly transformed Parenti’s claim from that of a ”central imperative” into that of a ”necessary component.” In addition, you seem to interpret the phrase ”necessary component” in a formal sense – that is, as a logically undeniable necessity for capitalism to operate.

I suppose that it is conceivable that a capitalist system could be developed such that its survival was not necessarily predicated on expansion. If, for example, a small society occupied an island in the middle of the ocean, cut off from all contact with the rest of the world, it might possibly display a ”capitalistic” form of economic organization even though it lacked opportunities for geographic expansion.

But this is not what our world looks like, and just because some capitalist enterprises are not geared towards expansion does not necessarily imply that capitalism as a whole is free from dynamics that compel it to expand. If you reflect upon the matter, I’m sure you can easily discern pressures within companies that drive them towards policies of aggressive expansion, especially in a situation of cut-throat market competition – in fact, you mention some of them in your response. Thus, I disagree with this claim:

…for a couple of reasons. First off, while it is conceivable that in some cases expansion is not a requirement for ”fruitful investment,” there are also other ventures in which the exact opposite is true; that when expansion founders, investors loose capital. In addition, you seem to have restated, and mischaracterized, Parenti’s argument: your field of view is too narrow.

One can equate ”expansion” with ”economic growth.” The GNP of capitalist countries must constantly grow, if those countries are to remain healthy. This growth cannot be predicated on stock-market tricks like the one you elucidated in your post if it is to be economically meaningful. In contrast to your claim that this dynamic is “unfounded”, these facts are well established empirically, as is the general tendency towards expansion displayed by the capitalist world system.

29

Bryan, cripes

[quote]
I pointed out the example of Starbucks as an example of exactly the kind of trivial “cultural imperialism” that we are led to believe is the extent of U.S. imperialism. The point is that U.S. imperialism IS savage and barbaric, and is NOT characterized by Starbucks in the Forbidden City…

[quote]
He even ‘shouted’ it.

30

But there are no specific examples of US ‘barbarism’ given. Only broad accusations…

31

Chumpsky is absolutely right, and the OP is terrific!

Especially the part about all the plunder we’ve hauled out of the former Yugoslavia. Why, I must have 50 kegs of slivovic* still sitting in the backyard!

*plum brandy. Also good as an alternate energy source.

32

I know of very few dudes that truly consider the USA an “Imperialist” power. “Blatantly obvious” seems to equate to “I have no proof, but if I say it loud enough maybe everyone will believe me”.

True, the USA & it’s corps do have some ASPECTS which are somewhat imperialistic. But many of the Corps are Multi-National, thus calling their “Imperialism” = to USA is specious. If we define what the USA currently does as “Imperialism” then every nation that has any significant power is “imperialistic”, whereupon the word loses all meaning.

The Soviet USSR, Nazi Germany, and of course preWWII Great Britain are classic “Imperialistic powers”. The USA doesn’t even come close.

33

I know of a few:

  • Poor foreigners who believe (or are told) that its the USAs fault that they are poor
  • Foreign warlord types who don’t like the USA coming in and wrecking their raping and pillaging
  • Self righteous college students looking for yet another cause to do nothing about
  • Muslims who are pissed off about Israel
  • Foreign competitors

I guess that’s about it.

34

Parenti mentions several examples in his introduction, such as the rape of Borneo. The essay, keep in mind, is an introduction to a book, which is replete with examples.

In my mind, one of the best examples of U.S. imperialism’s savagery is in the case of Nicaragua. The following is from memory, but I can dig up references if necessary. However, all of this information is readily available from an internet search. I encourage people to verify what I write and correct any errors.

Nicaragua was a virtual colony of the U.S. until the 1920’s and 30’s, when, under the leadership of Augusto Cesar Sandino, Nicaraguans briefly enjoyed a modicum of success against the U.S. and its proxies. In 1934, Sandino was murdered by the U.S. favorite, Anastazio Somoza. The Somoza family ruled Nicaragua with an iron fist for the next 45 years, with lavish support from the U.S. In the late 70’s, the Nicaraguan people revolted against the bloody rule of Somoza and liberated the country. The group that led the revolt and took power called themselves the Sandinistas after Sandino.

When Somoza was forced to flee the country the U.S. flew his National Guard out of the country in airplanes disguised with Red Cross markings, a war crime. Then, the U.S. immediately began attacking Nicaragua. You see, the crime the Sandinistas committed was that they had instituted very effective reforms and had the highest economic growth rate in Latin America. Their ambitious literacy programs, health care programs and other social programs were making significant progress in alleviating the mass suffering of the poor. For this crime, they were ruthlessly attacked. The attacks were vastly escalated by the Reaganites when they took power and organized Somoza’s ex-National Guardsmen into a terrorist force called the Contras to destroy Nicaraguan society. The backward peasant country of 4 million was subjected to an embargo and a ruthless terrorist campaign which took 50,000 lives in the 1980s according to some estimates.

In 1984 the Sandinistas held an election which still stands as one of the most remarkable examples of democracy in history. Under attack from a foreign superpower, they provided funds and free media time for all opposition groups, including the front group for the Contras which was attacking Nicaragua. Nothing even remotely similar has ever occured in any European country under attack. The 1984 election was the most intensely monitered election in history, and was universally acclaimed as free and fair. With over 70% of the electorate voting, the Sandinistas won 67% of the vote.

However, the Reaganites declared that Nicaragua was a “Marxist dictatorship.”

Under the ongoing attack from the U.S., Nicaragua took the U.S. to the World Court for its international terrorism, and won a victory in 1986, in which the U.S. was ordered to cease its murderous attacks and pay $17 billion in reparations. The ruling was dismissed with contempt and then the U.S. stepped up its terrorist attacks, giving explicit orders to the Contras for the first time to attack “soft targets”–undefended or lightly defended civilian targets. The degree of support given to the Contras far exceeds the amount of foreign support given to a so-called “guerrilla” group, save one, the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The proxy terrorist army was trained and supplied by the U.S., stationed out of U.S. bases in Honduras, and were the beneficiaries of CIA recon flights in order to avoid the Nicaraguan army and attack only “soft targets.”

By the late 1980’s Nicaragua’s economy was devastated by the embargo, natural disasters and the necessity of diverting precious resources into defending the country against a superpower attack. The Sandinistas held another election in 1990. Days before the election, Bush #1 held a press conference at the White House in which he declared that if the U.S. favorite, an extreme rightist named Chamorro, won the election that the attacks would cease, the embargo would be lifted, and aid would flow to the country. Otherwise the attacks would continue. Under this threat, the U.S. puppet won the election by a slim margin, placing the country back under U.S. control. Basically, the people of Nicaragua had a choice: vote for the U.S. candidate or watch your children starve. Independent development had been thwarted. Although the Reaganites were prevented by popular resistance from carrying out their deeply held desire to invade the country outright, the terrorist and economic attacks succeeded in the end.

Nicaragua is again a virtual U.S. colony, where labor unions have been destroyed, where everything has been privatized, where the poverty rate is absolutely ridiculous. All of the progress made by the Sandinistas in the early 1980’s has been reversed as Nicaragua has been forced back into the “Central American mode” of suffering and privation. U.S. corporations enjoy free reign to exploit the natural resources and the people, and there is nothing the people can do about it. They understand the consequences of defying the bully on the block.

The case of Nicaragua is typical. In general, the U.S. acts to prevent independent economic development. Whether the development is leftist, as in the case of Nicaragua, or rightist, as in the case of Iraq, no country can be allowed to develop outside the economic system organized and dominated by the U.S.

35

The only problem with this is that I never called “the masses” “atoms of consumption.” I wrote:

“The goal [of the imperialists] is to create a world where … there are just atoms of consumption and production sitting in their apartments …”

It is the imperialists who want to turn the people into atoms of consumption. It is the imperialists who want to degrade civil society to the point where people are only units of consumption and production, where every human relation is replaced with economic transactions.

Far from having contempt for “the masses” as you put it, I believe that it is exactly what are called the “common people” who make positive change.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

36

Here is a transcript of a talk by the late scholar Eqbal Ahmed given in 1998:
Terrorism: Theirs and Ours

It is an excellent talk, especially remarkable for the fact that it was given in 1998. He says, regarding jihad:

37

The irony, of course, is that one would think the collapse of the USSR would allow the Americans to go hog-wild and annex virtually every country in sight if they were as arrogant and greedy as the op implies. Oddly, they never seem to get around to it.

Nicaragua is a truly awful case of U.S. interference, but there is a larger context; namely the perceived need to limit increasing Soviet influence. The Soviets were really really good at that imperialist thing. Just ask the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Poles, Hungarians, Bulgarians, etc.

Did the U.S. act harsher than necessary? Of course they did. But that doesn’t qualify them as the worst imperalist power of the 20th-century, nor do I believe they’re likely to earn that title in the 21st. Hyperbole doesn’t equal proof.

38

Jihad had disappeared until the 1980s? What?

During post-WWI, jihad was declared several times during uprisings against the British in what was to become Iraq and in Syria.

That drivel about the US reviving it is just that - drivel.

39

Well, why haven’t they made “positive change” yet? What’s stopping them (by which I mean just the Americans, for the sake of argument) from changing all of Congress in one swoop? They’re given the opportunity to do so every two years, rain or shine.

Let me guess: the imperalists are stopping them. Don’t worry, I’ll take your word for it and not ask for evidence or proof or logic or anything. Let’s say the imperialists really have prevented the masses from exercising their power to casually change Congress, the Senate and President through the vote. Here’s the $64 dollar question:

The masses not yet risen up in glorious revolution because:
A - They’re crushed down by jackbooted thugs.
B - They’re far too stupid and apathetic to act for their own good.
C - They’re actually pretty satisfied with the system as it stands.

I know your posts suggest A, but I kinda think you actually believe B, and get kind of annoyed whenever anyone suggests C.

Personally, I’d go with C. It’s rather arrogant to asssume B and paranoid to believe A. How many jackbooted thugs have you seen today?

40

You are missing a very important point.

The imperialist system maintained by the U.S. and other imperialist countries is different from the “classic” imperialist systems in that it does not seek to annex territory. As Parenti explains, it is not the territory that the imperialists are after, but rather the wealth. The system that is maintained is one of support for compradors who serve Washington and allow for the exploitation of a country’s internal resources. This system is much more efficient than the old system of occupation and annexation. If the U.S. were to annex, say Saudi Arabia for example, then it would have to extend some rights to the people of Saudi Arabia. It is much better to have a subservient government in power that keeps the people down and the profits flowing to the west. With this system you get all of the benefits in terms of wealth extraction without any of the downsides, like allowing the people of the colonized to benefit from the wealth of their countries.

The Cold War was merely the pretext for carrying out the same policies that have always been carried out under various pretexts. The U.S. was intervening in Latin America long before the 1917 revolution, and continues to intervene today, under different pretexts.

Although frightened little men might scurry under their desks at Reagan’s pronouncement that the Sandinistas were only “two days march from Texas,” the idea that Nicaragua posed a threat to the U.S. was ludicrous.

Also, if you want to compare the imperialist behavior of the U.S. and USSR, just look at, say, Guatemala and Poland in the 1980’s.