Avoid the slacking use of ''imperialism'' in trade debates.
There's a nice theoretical tradition behind it, but we should avoid sloganeering.
The Hobson / Lenin / Hilferding school sees imperialism as countries using political means to vent their trade and financial surpluses.
There's a nice theoretical tradition behind it, but we should avoid sloganeering.
The Hobson / Lenin / Hilferding school sees imperialism as countries using political means to vent their trade and financial surpluses.
The Hobson / Lenin / Hilferding school would consider China the quintessential imperialist country in today's world, not Sweden or Denmark.
Even if countries have a particular trade balance or relation of exchange with other nations, it depends on what their *politics* are.
Even if countries have a particular trade balance or relation of exchange with other nations, it depends on what their *politics* are.
The US importing cheap textiles from Bangladesh is not imperialism, sorry.
Not even Lenin called that imperialism. Lenin uses the example of the Berlin–Baghdad railway in his famous book. In fact, that bears the most resemblance to China's silk road project.
Not even Lenin called that imperialism. Lenin uses the example of the Berlin–Baghdad railway in his famous book. In fact, that bears the most resemblance to China's silk road project.
Ironically, the ''NATO did stuff in Libya'' would be considered a Kautskyite super alliance theory of imperialism, which the MLs said they don't like.
The amazing irony of MLs on this site drop Lenin's theory and go to Kautsky's!
The amazing irony of MLs on this site drop Lenin's theory and go to Kautsky's!
TL;DR, the people using ''imperialism'' interchangeably with ''trade'' or ''outsourcing'' are not even close to understanding the theories they are superficially referencing.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
