You’re starting to really get the Imperialism argument, fantastic! To answer your question regarding development eventually evening out, it’s through millitary presense and fostering dependence that keeps these countries underdeveloped. Look to what the Sahel States are doing now for an example of actual resistance to this expropriation, they are nationalizing industries and limiting exports to finished products, rather than raw materials. The Imperialist countries fight this with millitary intervention and sanctions in order to extend the plunder as long as possible, because without it these Imperialist countries would face instability from having its working class suddenly being far more exploited.
As for the rest of your comment, I did read through it. Rather than respond point by point, though, I think our time would be better served by focusing on a few key points. I’d rather start fresh, to be honest, I believe we aren’t getting anywhere as it stands right now.
Land as Capital
I am not saying Land is the same as all other forms of Capital. However, ownership of land is handled in much the same way as industrial and financial capital, and the purpose of land from an economic perspective is to play a role in fulfilling needs and producing goods. It plays a part in the interconnected process. Focusing on land ownership doesn’t mean you ignore other aspects, and that’s not what I was trying to insinuate. However, placing more weight on Land than on Capitalist production in general, land included, seems to me an unjustified focus when land is becoming more of a problem precisely because of Capitalism, and isn’t as much of a problem in Socialist countries.
Private Ownership
My belief is that all markets centralize over time and eliminate competition. This happens at different rates in different sectors, but is nonetheless a constant approach. Market forces create societies where those best guessing the market decide the rules of society, while Socialism allows us to focus on satisfying needs over profits. After revolution, the transformation from markets to public ownership of the whole economy is a gradual one, but a necessary one nonetheless.
Ethics
To make this short, Marxism has nothing against individual freedoms except for the freedom of individuals to dominate others. Socialist societies have all seen dramatic democratizations of the economy not found within Capitalist systems.
Circling back, I really don’t think you and I disagree on much in the final analysis, the reason I seem absolutist in your eyes is because of firm disagreements on how we achieve a better society, as well as analysis of Imperialism. I think a lot of what you see in “successful Capitalism” rides on Imperialism, which is why I’m very happy to see your first paragraph. Marx was wrong on a few things, and also didn’t live to be able to analyze Imperialism as a special stage necessary to Capitalism. He didn’t predict countries using Imperialism as a means to perpetuate Capitalism. However, Marxism is an evolving framework, which is why we can look to see its success in China, as an example.
If you want, I can link sources or readings. However, I opted not to do so, as in my opinion, doing so rarely results in people actually doing the reading.
You’re starting to really get the Imperialism argument, fantastic! To answer your question regarding development eventually evening out, it’s through millitary presense and fostering dependence that keeps these countries underdeveloped. Look to what the Sahel States are doing now for an example of actual resistance to this expropriation, they are nationalizing industries and limiting exports to finished products, rather than raw materials. The Imperialist countries fight this with millitary intervention and sanctions in order to extend the plunder as long as possible, because without it these Imperialist countries would face instability from having its working class suddenly being far more exploited.
As for the rest of your comment, I did read through it. Rather than respond point by point, though, I think our time would be better served by focusing on a few key points. I’d rather start fresh, to be honest, I believe we aren’t getting anywhere as it stands right now.
I am not saying Land is the same as all other forms of Capital. However, ownership of land is handled in much the same way as industrial and financial capital, and the purpose of land from an economic perspective is to play a role in fulfilling needs and producing goods. It plays a part in the interconnected process. Focusing on land ownership doesn’t mean you ignore other aspects, and that’s not what I was trying to insinuate. However, placing more weight on Land than on Capitalist production in general, land included, seems to me an unjustified focus when land is becoming more of a problem precisely because of Capitalism, and isn’t as much of a problem in Socialist countries.
My belief is that all markets centralize over time and eliminate competition. This happens at different rates in different sectors, but is nonetheless a constant approach. Market forces create societies where those best guessing the market decide the rules of society, while Socialism allows us to focus on satisfying needs over profits. After revolution, the transformation from markets to public ownership of the whole economy is a gradual one, but a necessary one nonetheless.
To make this short, Marxism has nothing against individual freedoms except for the freedom of individuals to dominate others. Socialist societies have all seen dramatic democratizations of the economy not found within Capitalist systems.
Circling back, I really don’t think you and I disagree on much in the final analysis, the reason I seem absolutist in your eyes is because of firm disagreements on how we achieve a better society, as well as analysis of Imperialism. I think a lot of what you see in “successful Capitalism” rides on Imperialism, which is why I’m very happy to see your first paragraph. Marx was wrong on a few things, and also didn’t live to be able to analyze Imperialism as a special stage necessary to Capitalism. He didn’t predict countries using Imperialism as a means to perpetuate Capitalism. However, Marxism is an evolving framework, which is why we can look to see its success in China, as an example.
If you want, I can link sources or readings. However, I opted not to do so, as in my opinion, doing so rarely results in people actually doing the reading.