Re: Capitalist State Empire and Imperialism

Ali,
I think the "sex tourism" perfectly confirms your
analisys abot the relatoin between capitalism and
imperialism. A mean machine, evil one.

Jivko
--- Ali Rizvi <ali_m_rizvi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<HR>
<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
Foucaults insight about fundamental change that has
occurred in the nature of state in modern times
(Foucaults 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
sovereigns 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 states 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 in!
stance 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 individuals 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)
powers 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
Foucaults 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 Lenins 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 Lenins 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 Lenins
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 domin!
ation 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 IMFs imposition of neo
liberal policies, structural adjustment programmes,
World Banks 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 capitals 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 Singapores 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>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/