Capitalist State Empire and Imperialism

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV> 
Larry<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
Thanks for again very interesting and focused comments.<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
I would like to take up few points for further elaboration here.<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
1) One reason why I think there is a ?break? between ancient, medieval conceptions of Empire and modern imperialist states (nationalist or otherwise) is Foucault?s insight about fundamental change that has occurred in the nature of state in modern times (Foucault?s analysis also shows why this modern state is by the same logica inevitably linked to capitalism).<o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
According to Foucault the capitalist state is a totally new phenomenon in the known history of statehood. The way this is so can be understood by contrasting the capitalist state with the forms of state that existed before.
As against feudal societies where the state was essentially ?separated? from the individual and society in the modern period this separation between state and society cannot be maintained. In feudal societies state functioned largely in negative terms in the sense that its basic relationship with individuals and society was that of prohibition and inhibition. In feudal societies ?power of the sovereign over his subjects could be exercised in an absolute and unconditional way, but only in cases where the sovereign?s very existence was in jeopardy; a sort of right of rejoinder . . . the power of life and death was not an absolute privilege: it was conditioned by the defence of the sovereign and his own survival? (History of Sexuality vol. 1  p. 135). State in feudal societies did not posses nor did it need the power over individuals and the social body that is the hallmark of the present times. The power the state possessed over the individual and society was essentially negative: ?The sovereign exercised his right of life only by exercising his right to kill, or by refraining from killing; he evidenced his power over life only through the death he was capable of requiring. The right which was formulated as the ?power of life and death? was in reality the right to take life or let live? (ibid. p. 136 emphasis retained). The feudal state swings between the two termination points of taking life or letting live, it has no power over life in its positivity neither has it any interest in seeking such a power. The feudal state?s relation to life has been pure negativity. A society ?in which power was exercised mainly as a means of deduction (prelevement), a subtraction mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of wealth . . . Power in this instance was essentially a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately life itself: it culminated in the privilege to seize hold of life in order to suppress it? (ibid.). 
A new form of state has emerged however in the present era. If the previous form of state swung between the function of taking life or letting live this new state assigns itself the task of ?life administration? (ibid.). Power in the capitalist state is not exercised ?in the name of the sovereign who must be defended? but in the name of ?the existence of everyone?, in the name of the ?entire population?. The modern capitalist state takes the responsibility for and ?guarantees? the ?individual?s continued existence? by assuming right to manage life. Thus modern state power is ?exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large scale phenomenon of population? (ibid. p. 137). While the feudal state was centred on the phenomenon of death, the capitalist state is centered on life; it legitimises itself as the manager of life. In feudal societies ?in the passage from this world to other, death was the manner in which a terrestrial sovereignty was relieved by another, singularly more powerful sovereignty; the pageantry that surrounded it was in the category of political ceremony?. On the other hand in capitalist societies "it is over life, throughout its unfolding, that (state) power establishes its dominion; death is (the) power?s limit, the moment that escapes it; death become the most secret aspect of existence, the most 'private' " (ibid. p. 138). Hence death and with it all extreme experiences related to death become the only route in modern capitalist society to escape the tyranny of the state. It seems that the tyranny of the state over life can only be transcended by relinquishing life itself. Hence the recurrence of obsession with death and recurrence of this ?determination to die? emerges as a great scandal and ?one of the first astonishment of a society in which political power had assigned itself the task of administering life? (ibid. p. 139). Modern power even takes life in the name of life and legitimises this in the name of the preservation of life: ?Wars are no longer waged in the name of (the) sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilised for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity: massacres have become vital. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many to be killed? (ibid. p. 137).
The change in the nature of the state mentioned above has widened its ambit to include ?life? in its totality. In this sense the capitalist state includes 'every thing' [this corresponds to the early modern concept of ?police? as found in cameralism and German polizeiwissenchaft (Politics Philosophy and Culture p. 79)]. Thus the capitalist state is a ?totalising? force in the manner the feudal state was not. It must administer life as a whole. What Meszaros has written about the totalising character of capital is equally true about the capitalist state (this is because of the fact that underlying rationality is same: ? (T) he capital system is (the) first one in history which institutes itself as an unexceptional and irresistible totaliser?. (Beyond Capital p. 41).
Capitalist ?state power?, Foucault writes, ?is both an individualising and a totalising form of power. Never, I think, in the history of human societies-even in the old Chinese society ? has there been such a tricky combination in the same political structure of individualising techniques, and of totalisation procedures" (Subject and Power published as afterward to Dreyfus and Rabinow Foucault Beyond Structuralism? p. 213). Nothing escapes the capitalist state (this is the ambition of this state, its nature).
It is due to this change in the nature of state (and this depends on my assumption that Foucault?s analysis in this context is correct which is of course is a big assumption but the one which is supported by different other angles) that I try to think that modern state, modern nationalism, imperialism are totally new phenomenon and introduce a definitive break vis a vis our understanding of previous forms of statehood and that include Empire as well.
 <o:p></o:p>
2) As regard your objection to Lenin?s conception of imperialism and your critique of related theories of dependency and extraction, I agree with you. Actually I was too vague and I might have misled you by my comments in the last mail about my essential agreement with Lenin?s conception of imperialism. What I deem as lasting contribution of Lenin regarding imperialism is not what is represented by dependency and extraction theories. I think the lasting insight is Lenin?s realisation that (and it is my interpretation of Lenin and its attribution to Lenin can certainly be wrong) whenever capitalist production system attains maturity in a certain area the rate of profit declines over there and with increase in the rate of accumulation the opportunity to increase the circulation of accumulation decreases. To overcome this dilemma and to increase the rate of profit and in search for more liquidity capital leaves its erstwhile centres of accumulation and seeks new centres. This was the background of the first phase of imperialism that is commonly termed as colonialism. In that first phase as you have described the extraction of raw material from colonies, and export of surplus goods etc was important and all that is said in the context of dependency and extraction theories is relevant to this phase of imperialism. However in the new phase of imperialism the old techniques are not repeated as you have clearly noticed. To attain the same goal and to overcome the same dilemma capitalism in this second phase of imperialism uses different methods. The basic method in this phase is the distancing of production system and financial system through which capitalism is able to secure higher level of profits and higher level of fluidity. This new phase of imperialism may be termed as Globalisation. In this phase imperialism uses quite different tactics and methods of domination and exploitation as compared to those used in the first phase. These tactics are naturally focused on securing the dominance of financial markets over every thing else. The IMF?s imposition of neo liberal policies, structural adjustment programmes, World Bank?s globalisation and localisation initiatives, weakening of states vis a vis capital except the one state, establishing the hegemony of that state as the lender of last resort and the military defender of capital?s interests throughout the world etc. are the few ingredients of new imperialism we are witnessing rising (especially) since the downfall of the Soviet Union. It is in this sense that I see imperialism as the permanent condition of capitalism at least since the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century and at least for foreseeable future.  <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
3) Non western capitalism is certainly a possibility. But on the empirical grounds (whatever I can see that is) I doubt Japan and Singapore?s ability to transcend the model of the West.  The society, the educational system, financial and production system, the ethos of populace, etc seems to be the same. Essentially the kind of individual 'produced' , their aspirations their ideals are the same. Above all both are part of imperialist system spearheaded by predominantly Western (in all senses) countries. But as I said I use West in the value sense so this should not be confused with any sort of racist critique.  
 
thanks again, It has been pleasure talking to you.
regards
ali
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p>
 <o:p></o:p></DIV></div> <hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <a href='http://go.msn.com/bql/hmtag_itl_EN.asp'>http://explorer.msn.com</a> </html>