what if US and israel fucked off from the middle east and the rest of the third world, let their economies develop naturally into capitalist states and then did free trade with them?
the only logical argument against capitalism is imperialism, capitalism by itself makes sense.
>>2638928For a little bit, yea, but eventually it must turn to imperialism.
There's a book about this, i think. Forgot his name Lionel? Lich? i don't remember.
Primitive communism is fine by itself until the slavers who have a better mode of production come and kick your shit in. There is no going back, the only way forward is trough and the bullshit won't stop until we live in a fully classless society
Even if that delulu interpretation of market exchange were true, exploitation of the worker by the capitalist would still exist, read Marx
>>2638966Marx was wrong about literally everything
>t.Horrifically wrong individual
>>2638928>the only logical argument against capitalism is imperialism,no it isnt. the whole system shits itself because its chaotic and anarchic and no one can control it
>>2638971If Marx was actually subversive his books would be banned instead of stocked in the libraries of capitalist universities
>>2638975you will be forced to take BBC, chuddy
The answer is no. Or rather, imperialism as it exists under capitalism, is motivated by profit and the principles of private property. If something happened where every nation was forced to abide by peaceful rules and trade with each other all at once, you would probably still end up seeing imperialism. You don't even need war to perform imperialism when you have a compliant capitalist elite to carve up the sphere of influence over a given labor market or resources. In fact, imperialism hardly ever happens without some kind of domestic elite support in nations which are subjugated to empire, one brief look at the post-WW2 history of Latam and SEA can tell you as much. If all the states in the world answered to some kind of world order in which violent politics was highly difficult, and if these states were all very powerful in their respective areas, cultural conflict and tribalism were completely erased for a brief moment, that order would still break down after a decade or two via worker rebellions, nationalist uprisings, major economic crises, the falling rate of profit, etc. all the things that necessitate the violent renegotiation of property rights we call imperialism.
>can there be capitalism without imperialism?
no, capitalism is an outgrowth of mercantile trade policy, which means an imperial strategy for increasing national wealth. later, "free trade" is facilitated by imperial powers between colonies (extended today by things like currency hegemony, which forces countries to internationally trade with USD, and anyone who refuses can be killed, like hussein and qadafi, who both wanted to trade their oil in different currencies). anyone who goes against the empire is also "sanctioned", which means that their trade is limited and so it forces submission to the global network. capitalism in theory is a peer-peer system, but in reality, there is always a middle-man. this is also why we can view commerce in itself as opposed to capitalism as a distinct system of wealth extraction, the same way marx did. for example, commodity production and exchange is not uniquely capitalist; what is uniquely capitalist is the centring of wage labour as a commodity, due to the private concentration of property by capitalists (provided by policies of "primitive accumulation", or state appropriation of property, which then impose wage labour onto propertyless persons). this is also why something like "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction, since capitalism is born and is maintained by state violence. individualism, or voluntaryism, is then inherently anticapitalist, since it would also allow for the free competition of labour against capital.
>the only logical argument against capitalism is imperialism, capitalism by itself makes sense
I really don't vibe with this take. It's basically "exploitation is good as long as everybody plays nice" delusional liberal hugbox policy
>>2639054>no, capitalism is an outgrowth of mercantile trade policy, which means an imperial strategy for increasing national wealth. later, "free trade" is facilitated by imperial powers between colonies (extended today by things like currency hegemony, which forces countries to internationally trade with USD, and anyone who refuses can be killed, like hussein and qadafi, who both wanted to trade their oil in different currencies). anyone who goes against the empire is also "sanctioned", which means that their trade is limited and so it forces submission to the global network. capitalism in theory is a peer-peer system, but in reality, there is always a middle-man. this is also why we can view commerce in itself as opposed to capitalism as a distinct system of wealth extraction, the same way marx did. for example, commodity production and exchange is not uniquely capitalist; what is uniquely capitalist is the centring of wage labour as a commodity, due to the private concentration of property by capitalists (provided by policies of "primitive accumulation", or state appropriation of property, which then impose wage labour onto propertyless persons). this is also why something like "anarcho-capitalism" is a contradiction, since capitalism is born and is maintained by state violence. true true….
> individualism, or voluntaryism, is then inherently anticapitalist, since it would also allow for the free competition of labour against capital.OH GOD OH FUCK SMITH ANON IS THAT YOU
>>2638975marx was banned from europe and his entire field of political economy was abandoned by the academia because it had uncomfortable implications and bismarck's germany enacted anti-socialist laws. how's that for subversive?
>>2639062It's pretty crazy that capitalism feels so comfy and unthreatened right now that the state doesn't even care when you read communist literature
>>2639065they can't ban Marx now, it'd be foolish to even try.
>>2639065well that's true, after the 80s there's nothing threatening left
>>2639065this is because the ruthless criticism of all that exists is nothing without the real movement to abolish the present state of things
>>2638928Where would they get the profits? Many areas of the capitalist economy like industrial farming already require enormous subsidies. The rate of profit is only getting lower and it's especially low in imperialist countries because of the very development they have. American corn is very cheap and capitalism says that it's only getting cheaper. And now that AI is a thing white collar jobs are being devalued in a very similar way in real time.
cont. from:
>>2639054it should also be noted that marx saw how capitalism largely grew out of the transatlantic slave trade, proposing the very survival of the system on this basis (e.g. slaves as akin to capitalist machinery):
<Direct slavery is just as much the pivot of bourgeois industry as machinery, credits, etc. Without slavery you have no cotton; without cotton you have no modern industry. It is slavery that gave the colonies their value; it is the colonies that created world trade, and it is world trade that is the precondition of large-scale industry. Thus slavery is an economic category of the greatest importance. Without slavery North America, the most progressive of countries, would be transformed into a patriarchal country. Wipe North America off the map of the world, and you will have anarchy – the complete decay of modern commerce and civilization. Cause slavery to disappear and you will have wiped America off the map of nations.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htmso then, the generalised commodity of wage labour is not the ubiquitous factor of capitalist development, but also "patriarchal" forms of property, like slaves, which in their productive character, are replaced by machines, while in turn, man himself transforms into a machine.
so then, another question to ask would be, "can you have capitalism without slavery?" marx would say no. some statistics also report that more slaves exist today than ever have in history, showing how capitalism necessitates enslavement:
<An estimated 50 million people were living in modern slavery on any given day in 2021. This is nearly one in every 150 people in the world.https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/map/the clean view of "abolition" is then an illusion. is capitalism really "progressive" beyond previous modes of production, or has it simply advanced the same model in more sophisticated ways? for example, david graeber relates that wages literally came out of slave/servant work, as the salary for the labourer (going all the way back to antiquity). if we are "wage slaves" then is the only difference the form of signification, as marx implies?
<In slave labour, even that part of the working-day in which the slave is only replacing the value of his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. All the slave’s labour appears as unpaid labour. In wage labour, on the contrary, even surplus-labour, or unpaid labour, appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation conceals the unrequited labour of the wage labourer.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htmthe difference between slavery and wage-slavery… is the wage? marx also says that the true difference is that the free worker "owns" his commodity of labour-power, and asserts that a slave cannot produce beyond his own value, since he only counts as fixed capital:
http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/07/marx-on-slaves-as-fixed-capital.html?m=1either way, slavery is endemic to capitalism, it seems, even in such forms as housewivery or prison labour, which, if they were paid at the minimum wage, would collapse the economy.
>>2638928Capitalism was born out of imperialism, not vice-versa.
>>2639054100% spot on. Mercantilism predates capitalism.
>>2638928If so, US would lose dollar hegemony.
Then it means the end of the gravy train.
You are a retarded faggot&and a fucking bitch.
>>2638928No because the current regime in the US is in a crisis of capital. Capitalists have exploited the US so much and have such high standards of capital to maintain they have to invade foregin countries, both because internal class conflict is getting worse and that there is simply not enough resources for the cars, phones, etc in the west.
>>2640882So unless the US becomes socialist or does MAJOR cut backs (that would result in revolution doe) they have to be imperialist.
>>2638928>can there be capitalism without imperialism?Obviously. The vast majority of capitalist states currently aren't even near being imperialist.
>>2638950>For a little bit, yea, but eventually it must turn to imperialism.Delulu. The imperialist bloc does not like to tolerate newcomers to the game and will try to sabotage every attempt. See post-ww2 Japanese history, for example. Very few make it, and usually because they are strategic allies in a region for the imperialists so they get tolerated to a degree.
Threads like these convinced me 95% of leftypol posters haven't even read The Book or understand 20-21st century history.
For them capitalism is "bad" and imperialism is "big bad" and the moral law is of necessary development of one into another.
Disgusting, ignorant, loud mouthed idiots.
>>2638928It depends. China has never been imperialist. So either China is not capitalist since its ruled by communists or "capitalism" can exist without imperialism.
>>2640901>Economic systems producing their own contradictions by their very nature,but what if they didn't tho, you can see the contradictions coming and prevent them.
>>2640923>but what if they didn't tho, you can see the contradictions coming and prevent them.>Just prevent monopoly formation bro. Who should prevent it? Oh the government run by the monopolies>Just prevent a falling rate of profit caused by increased mechanization even though it's a prisoners dilemma in which any party that doesn't obey the stagnation law becomes richer and more powerfull >Just don't saturate the market bro even though being the first to produce more makes you richer and more powerfull bro>Just don't do imperialism bro even though it's super profitable for the first clique of capitalists to do so and also they can then bully the others that didn't>Just don't pay bad wages even though it's profitable and falling rates of profit as said above makes this the only way not to lose profitabilityRead the fucking book my guy. "Just prevent contradictions by seeing them coming" isn't something that has ever happened. If you believe such nonsense then do not even post on this website or call yourself a communist again.
Unique IPs: 20