In the discussion of my notes “is a Bit on the situation in the Russian imperialism and the hope for future changes here and now” (other name “a Little bit about the hope for change here and now”) there was a question in which was asked to clarify the nature of imperialism, due to the fact that “the U.S. is not an Empire” (the essence of weird, but Oh well). After some of my clarification of the issue appeared the following statement:
“In the Empire – one owner!…He disposes of all newly created in the Empire capital, and manages always bad, i.e. to the detriment of the interests of the people. Instead of improving the quality of life of the people he(the Emperor) the capital spends on the military, the conduct of hostilities, strengthening its immense protection(police and any “guards”) to protect its power from the people! And the end of all empires one, it’s a severe military defeat, or as in Romania – Ceausescu!…
USA is not an Empire, where each state has its own budget, which is administered by the people’s power – the parliaments!”
In principle, you could do a small reply, but sensed that will not prevent new note, which will be devoted to the analysis of this review. To some extent I repeat truisms, but rather many really in question that such imperialism are in error. But tellingly, I don’t plan to post a lot to pay attention to structural analysis of imperialism, I just want to try to show that the Imperial power does not necessarily declared himself the Empire (and apparently the author of the above statement, this understands, and many others understand it, but still…), because in capitalism the shuck in the add-in in the form of “sacred rulers” one could say that is gone and it’s time to look at the world through the eyes of a man who fits everything from the point of view of the primacy of science and of sociology (in particular class approach). So, try to answer the review…
Well let’s start with the fact that in any state it is difficult to imagine exactly one owner of all property and means of production. In any case, socio-economic and political domination of certain social groups (in the framework of the capitalist formation it is the class of the bourgeoisie) is ensured thanks to many members of this domination. Even when capitalism reaches its limit and begins to strengthen the public sector, thereby limiting access to the ownership of the means of production, is still involved in the ownership of a certain stratum of people (in this case correctly stated even the founders of Marxism, “in your current society destroyed private property for nine-tenths of its members; it exists due to the fact that does not exist for nine-tenths”).
Of course, you can continue on the basis of archaic thinking, to think that the means of production in the so-called empires owns a sort of “sacred Person”(the Emperor) and to him by God the opportunity to own all, but it’s one of the areas in which almost no one believes. Long time to discuss this topic the followers of such ideas I don’t think so, still this fact will not change. Well, you can draw a line and say: in any state (except the socialist that can only be on a global scale and it is like one world is) the means of production owns the current class of exploiters (let me emphasize again that today is the bourgeoisie) and not a specific person, which plays the role of a creature within the current imperialism.
The idea that this “one owner” (as above I already said that he’s not alone) “disposes of all newly created in the Empire capital, and manages always bad, i.e. to the detriment of the interests of the people” should be clarified. Since we started talking about imperialist powers, it is worth noting that within the framework of imperialism cannot always be distributed to the detriment of the people, which the commenter apparently meant just “ordinary people” of the dominant nation (in Rfii such is the Russian nation. I note in advance that this group is already there and it included all aboriginal peoples on the territory of “this state” except the people of the North Caucasus, which are colonial in absolute position) in the imperialist country, for it, in the face of a labour aristocracy, receives preferences from the plunder of the colonies (if briefly: in the form of increased surplus product at low margins), which in principle increases the standard of living on average, which of course leads to some extent to the further impoverishment of the poor. But, as aptly remarked Friedrich Engels, cannot be free a people that oppresses others, so this form of “raising the standard of living at the expense of the colonies” can not last forever, and the oppressed masses to throw the monster on behalf of imperialism to the dustbin of history. When the colony gets out of power “first world”, then they will not be able to “Rob, a little more in order to hold the plebs”, which will lead to the ruin of the labour aristocracy of the imperialist countries. In this regard, of course, “the disposal of capital” in “the interests of the people” under a lot of dispute.
The fact that imperialism in General (again… not only the creature, whatever position she was not) is focused on strengthening the military budget as opposed to social sphere – true, but then again… considering what I wrote (maybe not extensively, but somehow) in the previous paragraph.
If Ceausescu’s Romania was not an imperialist country, therefore to imperialism (and even empires) not really appropriate to talk about, but the fact that imperialism when something needs to leave the historical stage – fact.
Now, about America and about imperialism in General. Not in America, “people’s power”, there are ruled by exactly the same social class, as in Russia, t. b. the imperialist big bourgeoisie. And the actual independence of the budgets of many States is not above the autonomy of regional budgets in Rfii. Well, consider the overall ratio of the US and imperialism. In principle, all signs of the highest stage of capitalism, imperialism, and which is discussed in the famous book by Vladimir Lenin, in fact, there are the following elements to determine the location of the country in this stage: 1) the emergence of monopolistic competition; 2) the formation of financial capital in the merger of banking and industrial capital; 3) the massive export of capital; 4) participation in the partition of the world between the monopolies; 5) participation in the world.
To sum up briefly (for it is still more than the note in the return form, and not a great article-research) each of these items:
1) the US has a major monopoly, which Dawley and in the domestic market and external. A good example is Exxon Mobil, which in fact has a monopoly in the sphere of oil production in the US market (maybe even the same as the Russian “Gazprom”). Also this monopoly was directly involved in the global monopolistic competition;
2) Well I think even the staunchest apologist for the U.S., it will not be denied;
3) In June 2014 was the record exports of capital;
4) All the same story with Exxon Mobil;
5) the USA is carrying out an active foreign policy, are of various outposts (e.g., Israel) for distribution of spheres of influence in other continents.
The conclusion from this is that the U.S. is an imperialist power, but it is not an Empire shape (about the content, by the way, it is possible to speculate, but that is another conversation).
Enough imperialism to bind to the old empires, came to an end the days when it was possible to say something about imperialism as the “noble” category has a sort of Imperium Internum, it’s time to turn sensible socio-economic analysis and not to use the knowledge of emotions, mixed with archaic views. I hope I was able to clarify something on the subject, if someone it was really interesting. Thank you for your attention!
09.04.2016
