Chinese/Russian imperialism moving into high gear? China and Gulf states plan to stop trading oil in dollars
Oct 7 2009 21:23
From Robert Fisk's article in the Independent:
Robert Fisk wrote:
...Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar.
...
The plans ... [augur] an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.
...
Chinese financial sources believe President Barack Obama is too busy fixing the US economy to concentrate on the extraordinary implications of the transition from the dollar in nine years' time. The current deadline for the currency transition is 2018.
Someone's turning a crisis into an opportunity, and using it for all it's worth.
Oct 7 2009 23:36
#2
There have been threats to use euros for years, this basket of currencies thing is interesting and it's a smart move not to use the unified currency entirely.
Oct 8 2009 03:57
#3
It looks like Fisk just made this up - he doesn't site any sources and everyone interviewed about it since then have denied it.
On the other hand, even if it were true it wouldn't be a surprise - as jef points out.
But why do you see this as a sign of "Chinese/Russian imperialism moving into high gear?" I wouldn't deny that China and Russia are imperialist, but I don't see what setting up an international basket of currencies as an alternative to the US dollar has to do with that. Sure imperialist states would generally want their currencies to be more widely used, but even if a state were not imperialist, wouldn't it make sense to set up such a basket? Isn't this mainly about lack of faith in the US dollar? And since this will be an international basket, if anything wouldn't it seem to point more to something like a Negrian transnational "Empire" rather than state vs. state imperialism?
Oct 8 2009 11:16
#4
Since imperialism doesn't act in a vacuum, but is a competition where the big players set the tone, a group of big players removing a piece of scaffolding essential to propping up their rival means that they are working to empower themselves. It could be that this empire will not be formally national, but it's obviously that China and/or Russia will be dominant in it. Furthermore, every nation would love to be in such a basket, but only bigger players will have enough clout. It's not like imperialists are beyond cooperating when it's clear that they can't really make it on their own (re: EU, NATO, Gulf States, etc.).
Nevertheless, some of the denials referred to in the China Digital Times article seem to be somewhat weak. For example:
AP wrote:
Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, dismissed the newspaper report as "not even serious" but did reiterate Russia's recent policy of multiplying the amount of reserve currencies "to ease the burden on a single world currency and save ourselves from another crisis."
So "no way!" but "um.. sort of."
New York Times wrote:
“It won’t be easy to make such a shift; it’s a pretty unrealistic idea in the near term,” said Qu Hongbin, an HSBC economist in Hong Kong. But in the years to come, he added, China would be delighted if it could print its own currency to pay for oil, instead of having to earn dollars through exports.
So "it's not realistic, but China would be delighted with a similar scenario that's even more unrealistic."
Then again, if they have been keeping this secret, their half-hearted denials aren't surprising. (Where's the tinfoil hat smiley when you need one!)
The real question is whether Robert Fisk is usually a reliable journalist.
Oct 8 2009 12:14
#5
husunzi wrote:
It looks like Fisk just made this up - he doesn't site any sources and everyone interviewed about it since then have denied it.
Of course they all denied it. What're they going to say, "um yeah, and it's due out in 2020"? If you watch the video at the bottom of the link you'll see the Chief Economist at HSBC saying that in a "ten, twenty, thirty" year period we will see other currencies "jostling for position". That jostling doesn't just happen through the "invisible hand" it will be organised, by states.
By the way, anyone remember the essay that tried to pin the Iraq war on the move away from the dollar as a petro-currency? http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html - overstates the case in comparison to other factors, but a BoE Central Banker I spoke to reckoned that it was definitely among the reasons fo the attack on Iraq.
Oct 8 2009 16:05
#6
Quote:
If you watch the video at the bottom of the link you'll see the Chief Economist at HSBC saying that in a "ten, twenty, thirty" year period we will see other currencies "jostling for position".
So that's what's in that video. I can't see it (even through a proxy) since I'm behind the great firewall 
Yes it does make sense they'd deny it. I don't know Fisk's record for reliability.
What does a tinfoil hat smiley signify?
Oct 8 2009 19:08
#7
Quote:
What does a tinfoil hat smiley signify?
Conspiracy theorists. A tinfoil hat supposedly stops the government/aliens/jews or whatever from reading your thoughts. ToJ was humorously portraying himself as a conspiracy nut for using the old 'they aren't denying it hard enough, so it must be true!' line. 
.
~J.
Oct 8 2009 21:40
#8
husunzi wrote:
So that's what's in that video. I can't see it (even through a proxy) since I'm behind the great firewall
but the libcoms get through? i wondered about that a few weeks ago.
Oct 9 2009 21:27
#9
The fact that this suggestion is being bandied about, and it’s quite probable that some informal talks have taken place along these lines, is indicative of the problems facing US imperialism today and into the future. It also underlines the centrifugal tendencies that are tending to dominate the international situation both from an economic and military point of view.
A couple of points: one is that all countries are imperialist from the largest down. And secondly, while there are strong links between the economic and military tendencies of capitalism, it is not a mechanical link. Economic activity can, and has continued be undertaken by states by preparing war with other; Britain and Germany being an example prior to World War II.
While there can be some economic cooperation between states, it has generally been, by virtue of its military and economic clout, the strongest imperialism, the USA, which has called the tune, the obvious weaknesses of the latter can only whet the imperialist appetites of others. We’ve recently seen some global cooperation from the major powers but this in the face of an unprecedented crisis that threatened meltdown. That cooperation was a minimum required of the situation and even within this we see the expressions of the national competition, with each trying to gain their own advantage or put down others.
The “cooperation” that Tree mentions, NATO, EU, Gulf States (and UN) is done at best through gritted teeth with ulterior motives, double-dealings, secret protocols and so on. Even during the relatively stable period of two, more or less clear cut, nuclear armed blocs, there were still centrifugal, competitive tendencies but these were kept very much in check as much by one bloc as the other. The weakening of the US on the world stage will neither diminish its military superiority, nor its competiveness and adventures, but on the contrary it will exacerbate them, further aggravating centrifugal tendencies in imperialist rivalries.
Oct 10 2009 12:07
#10
baboon wrote:
A couple of points: one is that all countries are imperialist from the largest down.
Can we just agree to call this tendency of all modern states "expansionism", and limit "imperialist" to just the bigger players in this game, so we don't find ourselves in the absurd situation of having to call, say, Lichtenstein imperialist?
Oct 10 2009 13:35
#11
no
Oct 10 2009 15:19
#12
Then let us fight to the death against the Liechtensteinian imperialist pigs!
Oct 11 2009 19:10
#13
Leaving aside historical jokes like Liechtenstein, Andorra and the like, I think it very important for maintaining an internationalist perspective to see that imperialism is a global phenomenon which itself produces various expressions of expansionism. It affects every country large and small and has to given the global domination of capitalism. In the smallest countries, the ruling classes, from one direction or another, immediately represent a particular imperialist interest within the global expression of imperialism. Obviously, the largest states are the biggest players up to the biggest Godfather, the USA. But imperialism is not just a question of states. Proto-states emerge and we’ve also seen the fairly recent developments of increasingly, stateless, irrational forces that themselves are also expressions, and become instruments of, imperialism. The Middle East shows that the absence of a particular national state doesn’t mean the absence of imperialist appetites and rivalries. On the contrary. The Palestinian “question” has been a vicious hot-bed of imperialist rivalry and skulduggery costing the lives of many, many thousands of workers and the poor since the 1920s. Also the idea of supporting a Palestinian state is an ongoing ideological attack on the dispossessed classes not just in the Middle East but around all the main capitalist metropoles.
Oct 11 2009 19:41
#14
I actually agree with Baboon/the ICC here. Here's the AF's take, which is broadly quite close:
Quote:
... This function also extends to ‘foreign policy’. The state negotiates access for domestic companies to resources, investment, trading and expansion abroad. The success of this process brings profits flowing back into the country in question and by enriching its business and the ‘national economy’, the state secures the material basis of its own power: it increases its own resources, wealth and ability to project itself. It is therefore not simply a puppet of ‘corporate interests’, but is an interested party in its own right.At the same time the state must seek to avoid its own domination, it must marshal its resources – military, diplomatic, cultural and economic – to maintain its own international position. There is constant struggle - whether at the roundtable with ‘international partners’ discussing trade policy or at arms in international ‘hotspots’ and ‘flashpoints’ – to ensure that the ‘national interest’ is advanced abroad and defended at home. These interests are furthered by maintaining, defending and manipulating inequalities which exist within capitalism across geographical space. For example, these asymmetries are today often expressed through phenomena such as regional monopolies, unequal exchange, restricted capital flows, and the manipulation of monopoly rents. Imperialism is about the mobilisation of these differences to the benefit of the economy of the state in question – meaning the capital within it. This is the normal functioning of the world economy, and is visible for example in US mobilisation of the International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation to the benefit of US financial industries or in Chinese manoeuvres in sub-Saharan Africa. States must participate in this system of constantly shifting balances of power irrespective of intentions, as those unable to ward off or manage these pressures will be totally dominated by them.
War comes to have an obvious function. Imperialist interventions can occasionally be motivated by specific quantitative gains, such as the exploitation of a specific resource. More often, however, the question is one of geopolitical strategy and outflanking other power blocs in order to maintain regional or international power. Resources are usually seen in strategic terms, not in terms of simple exploitation. If exploitation of Iraqi oil had been the US’ sole aim in the Persian Gulf, it would have been far cheaper and easier to leave Saddam in power and negotiate access. The question was one of militarily controlling this strategic resource, hence the invasion of Iraq. Control of Middle Eastern oil, which has a continued shelf-life beyond that of rival reserves, would grant the US effective control over the world economy, and specifically the economies of China, Russia, Japan and Europe, with their rival financial and manufacturing industries.
Similarly, the occupation of Afghanistan had little to do with exploiting particular resources, and everything to do with controlling a strategic point in the Caucasus and projecting into the spheres of influence of Russia and China. Afghanistan was occupied by the British and Russians for similar strategic reasons. The war in Vietnam ran the risk of damaging short – term capital accumulation, but nonetheless formed part of a grander imperial strategy which stood to benefit the interests of US capital by securing the leading global role of the US and making the ‘free world’ safe for investment and exploitation.
...
Imperialism does not simply emanate from a handful of big powers, oppressing smaller countries and extending their reach across the world. Undoubtedly there are imperialist policies that are much more successful than others. But the nation-state has imperialism in its very blood. Even if a state wished to stay ‘civilised’ and avoid the dynamics of imperialist competition and conflict, it would be forced to defend itself against attempts to prey on this weakness by other powers, using methods of greater or lesser directness. As a result, states with less capacity to project themselves align with those with more, using a logic that a child could understand.
Oct 11 2009 21:05
#15
But is there any sensible way of calling the Palestinian bourgeois "imperialist"? I can see how Hamas as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as an imperialist agent, but Hamas will not be building an empire. The same goes for the Zionist bourgeois, who do not seem to be set on empire-building, focusing instead on cementing its hold on what it has.
Oct 11 2009 23:54
#16
The Palestinian bourgeois seeks to expand its power and influence so I suppose that makes it imperialist. Same goes for Israel really, hence the attack on Lebanon.
Oct 12 2009 07:26
#17
treeofjudas wrote:
But is there any sensible way of calling the Palestinian bourgeois "imperialist"? I can see how Hamas as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as an imperialist agent, but Hamas will not be building an empire. The same goes for the Zionist bourgeois, who do not seem to be set on empire-building, focusing instead on cementing its hold on what it has.
The point is more that no state or proto-state power can avoid the pressures of imperialism on the world stage, and so has to participate to a greater or lesser degree. For small powers, this often means participating in one of several rival imperialist blocs. So in the case of Hamas this is fairly clear. Similarly with the Israeli ruling class, who pretty clearly find that their interests are best fulfilled as part of a US-led bloc, as their militarised junior partner in the middle east. This doesn't mean that there aren't conflicts of interest between 'allies' and rivalries between them don't exist (for example Israel getting it's knuckles rapped for attempting to sell high-tech military gear to China), but its broadly the picture on a world stage.
Essentially the point is that this is something imminent to nation-states, as capitalism as a global system is not something the can step outside. So even small states have to find a place for themselves to avoid being totally dominated by larger powers.
Oct 12 2009 18:26
#18
Broadly agree with Django particularly on the Iraq and Afghanistan (now AfPak) wars.
Zionism is an expression of imperialist expansion par excellence. Though its not black and white, ie, it's a messy business, Hamas and Hizbollah are expressions of Iranian, Syrian and Egyptian imperialism as well as the desires of the leaders of the former to cut out their own fiefdoms within capitalist society.
During the Cold War, Palestinian nationalism was supported by the Russian bloc.
Oct 13 2009 13:57
#19
Well, we're really sinking into semantics here, but the distinction I'm proposing isn't between nationalist groups free of or beholden to imperialist pressures, but between imperialist agents (Hamas, Hizbollah, Zionists) and imperialist powers (US, Russia, China). There's a difference between betting on a horse and riding it. For one thing, it's much easier for someone doing the former to change horses mid-race. 
Oct 13 2009 14:42
#20
To get byond semantics, we have to ask whether imperialism is an unchanging feature of capitalism, or corresponds to a particular stage in the evolution of capital as a global system. In the past, different marxists like Lenin, Bukharin and Luxemburg had different theories about the economic roots of imperialism, but they were all convinced that it corresponded to or at least heralded the final period of capitalism. Both Bukharin (initially) and Luxemburg drew the logical consequences from this: that in the imperialist era there were no more 'national' wars, ie wars which, while undeniably capitalist in origin, could play a progressive role in the formation of new nation states. In this period, since communism was already on the agenda, the formation of new independent nations was no longer a demand to be supported by communists and all wars - except for the civil war between proletariat and bourgeoisie - were imperialist wars, fundamentally because of the historical context in which they took place.
Oct 13 2009 15:11
#21
Alf wrote:
In the past, different marxists like Lenin, Bukharin and Luxemburg had different theories about the economic roots of imperialism, but they were all convinced that it corresponded to or at least heralded the final period of capitalism. Both Bukharin (initially) and Luxemburg drew the logical consequences from this: that in the imperialist era there were no more 'national' wars, ie wars which, while undeniably capitalist in origin, could play a progressive role in the formation of new nation states. In this period, since communism was already on the agenda, the formation of new independent nations was no longer a demand to be supported by communists and all wars - except for the civil war between proletariat and bourgeoisie - were imperialist wars, fundamentally because of the historical context in which they took place.
yeah, that's completely batshit though, as if imperialism doesn't precede capitalism let alone arrive on the scene late. and there's been plenty of new national states formed since Lenin's day. all this 'final period of capitalism' nonsense seems to stem from a theological desire to square Marx's support for some national wars in his day with the fact it's a blatantly reactionary position. would the ICC have supported the first Anglo-Afghan war then?
Oct 13 2009 15:51
#22
Basically, imperialism is a symptom, the cause is decadence. Before capitalism's historical decadence there was no imperialism... except for the Persian, Alexandrian, Carthaginian, Roman, Han, Sassanid, Byzantine, Tang, Holy Roman, Incan, Ming, Mongolian, Timurid, Russian, Moroccan, Spanish, Ottoman, Aztec, Quing, Mughdal, Portuguese, British, Dutch, French, Belgian, Italian, German, etc. etc. etc. Empires of course, um, er...
But the important thing is that there are now no more 'national wars', except, well, the Greek, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Paraguayan, Indo-Pakistani, Palestinian, Israeli, Tunisian, Cuban, Angolan, Mozambican, Bangladeshi, etc. etc. etc. of course... er...
But the crucial thing is that there are no new nation states... except for like Ireland, Afghanistan, South Africa, Canada, Iraq, Iceland, Pakistan, India, New Zealand, Israel, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Jordan, Sri Lanka, and like a f*ckload of others, er... um... er...
So I hope that clears it up for ya. All wars are Imperialist wars, not like those wars they used to have before decadence. Nope, those wars were definitely 'good wars' because they were 'national liberation' wars, because, um... er... because the winners said so, and we should obviously take that at face value... er...
Excuse me, has anybody got a clue they can spare? I don't seem to have one.
~ICC
EDIT: F*ck you JK, you beat me to it.
Oct 13 2009 16:06
#23
Quote:
but the libcoms get through? i wondered about that a few weeks ago.
Sorry to deflate anyone's sense of importance, but no. If it makes you feel any better, very few non-Chinese anti-capitalist sites are blocked. If your site has no Chinese on it and you want to get blocked, you'll have to post one of the following:
(1) porn
(2) detailed instructions on how to make bombs, etc.
(3) stuff in support of some organization or movement that has a large following in China and has staged massive demonstrations and/or terrorist attacks against the present CP leadership. bonus points if its leaders have political asylum and/or funding from the US.
ChinaStudyGroup.net was once blocked because we reposted a letter (in Chinese) by some retired party leaders to the politburo, criticizing China's marketization (turn to capitalism, in their view), growing gap between rich and poor, etc., and calling for a return to "the socialist path." This letter was blacklisted and all the website that posted it were blocked. But a website that posted an English translation wasn't blocked. My point is just that they're mainly concerned about Chinese stuff, unless it's perceived as an influential site among Chinese anti-gov elements. (And Libcom.org, for all its merits, is not that.)
Oct 13 2009 16:11
#24
Luxemburg's whole analysis (because the ICC didn't invent anything here) was "batshit"? Is that a debate? Is that a serious way of engaging with the contribution of the revolutionaries of the past? Of course Marx's whole analysis was equally batshit. When he said in the wake of the Paris Commune that the era of national wars was over for Europe, he did not mean that there would be no more wars between nations, but that they had ceased to play any useful historical role. Neither does the term mean that no new nation states would be formed ever again. The issue is the historical significance of the emergence of these states.
Is it really batshit to ask whether the formation of new capitalist nations was, at a certain moment, a step forward from the existence of a myriad of feudal fiefdoms? And, if so, what attitude should revolutionaries of that time have taken towards struggles to form such nation states? Was it batshit for revolutionaries around the beginning of the 20th century to ask whether there had been a fundamental change in the nature of such struggles?
I note, for example, that the AF pamphlet on nationalism (which has a lot of positive features about it) uses the term "ascendant bourgeoisie" in a number of places, without really going into what this means.
Oct 13 2009 16:21
#25
husunzi wrote:
Quote:
but the libcoms get through? i wondered about that a few weeks ago.Sorry to deflate anyone's sense of importance, but no. If it makes you feel any better, very few non-Chinese anti-capitalist sites are blocked. If your site has no Chinese on it and you want to get blocked, you'll have to post one of the following:
(1) porn
(2) detailed instructions on how to make bombs, etc.
(3) stuff in support of some organization or movement that has a large following in China and has staged massive demonstrations and/or terrorist attacks against the present CP leadership. bonus points if its leaders have political asylum and/or funding from the US.ChinaStudyGroup.net was once blocked because we reposted a letter (in Chinese) by some retired party leaders to the politburo, criticizing China's marketization (turn to capitalism, in their view), growing gap between rich and poor, etc., and calling for a return to "the socialist path." This letter was blacklisted and all the website that posted it were blocked. But a website that posted an English translation wasn't blocked. My point is just that they're mainly concerned about Chinese stuff, unless it's perceived as an influential site among Chinese anti-gov elements. (And Libcom.org, for all its merits, is not that.)
jesus, it was a fucking honest question.
Oct 13 2009 16:20
#26
treeofjudas wrote:
Well, we're really sinking into semantics here, but the distinction I'm proposing isn't between nationalist groups free of or beholden to imperialist pressures, but between imperialist agents (Hamas, Hizbollah, Zionists) and imperialist powers (US, Russia, China). There's a difference between betting on a horse and riding it. For one thing, it's much easier for someone doing the former to change horses mid-race. ;-)
I understand where you're coming from, but I think this complicates matters unnecessarily T.B.H. I mean, a leading power like Britain which has its own objectives and interests finds them well expressed through various forms of international co-operation (EU, IMF, NATO) etc, which often means lining up alongside the US, or other European powers. Again, this doesn't mean there aren't divergences of interest and rivalries with their 'partners' in these organisations. So I think when it comes down to it this kind of distinction would be difficult to sustain.
Oct 13 2009 16:28
#27
Alf wrote:
I note, for example, that the AF pamphlet on nationalism (which has a lot of positive features about it) uses the term "ascendant bourgeoisie" in a number of places, without really going into what this means.
Thats a reference to capitalist social relations increasingly asserting their dominance over Europe and the world. I think thats a fairly uncontroversial historical point - Capitalism replaced Feudalism over the period of several hundred years.
It also makes the point that imperialism was necessary to establish beachheads for capitalism in Europe, through the mercantile class trading in plundered wealth from the colonies and newly opened parts of the world. Not only has imperialism always been integral to capitalism, its been integral to its establishment.
Oct 13 2009 16:29
#28
Quote:
Marx's whole analysis was equally batshit. When he said in the wake of the Paris Commune that the era of national wars was over for Europe, he did not mean that there would be no more wars between nations, but that they had ceased to play any useful historical role.
So when Marx said 'the Era of National Wars was over' what he actually meant to say was 'the Era of National Wars is going to continue almost exactly as it has done up till no, only now it's not 'useful', whatever that's meant to mean, any more'. Ye-es. Actually, you're just talking total cobblers here aren't you?
Quote:
Is it really batshit to ask whether the formation of new capitalist nations was, at a certain moment, a step forward from the existence of a myriad of feudal fiefdoms?
What do you mean 'a step foreword'? Foreword in what sense? A step foreword for capitalists, certainly. For many others, however, this process was simultaneously a process of dispossession, and the accompanying emiseration that entails. Was it a step foreword for the comparatively wealthy craftsman or peasant to be stripped of land and tools and thrown down into the masses of the proletariat? I don't think you can abstract from class differences like that, sorry.
Quote:
I note, for example, that the AF pamphlet on nationalism (which has a lot of positive features about it) uses the term "ascendant bourgeoisie" in a number of places, without really going into what this means.
That's cos to anyone not steeped in ICC jargon, it obviously just means ascendant i.e. (gaining in political and economic power) bourgeoise (i.e. capitalists, bosses, etc.).
~J.
Oct 13 2009 16:36
#29
Alf wrote:
Luxemburg's whole analysis (because the ICC didn't invent anything here) was "batshit"?
i didn't mention "Luxemburg's whole analysis", i'm talking about the idea "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism" which is chronologically and intellectually retarded.
Alf wrote:
the AF pamphlet on nationalism (which has a lot of positive features about it) uses the term "ascendant bourgeoisie" in a number of places, without really going into what this means.
hmm, and what goes up, must come down right? so if the bourgeosie have ascended, they must now be decadent! that's just basic physics. right, i'm not containing my flippancy very well so i'll stay off this thread methinks.
Oct 13 2009 19:38
#30
Luxemburg would not have disagreed with 'imperialism the highest stage of capitalism' in that Lenin also described this as the period of capitalism's decay.
As regards ascendance, before you can get into the question of capitalist decadence, you have to define what is meant by capitalist ascendancy and what political implications that definition had. For Marx and as far as I know all the marxists of the 19th century it meant recognising that capitalism had played a historically progressive role, and that one of the consequences of this was the possibility of forming alliances with certain fractions of the bourgeoisie against the feudal remnants or more reactionary sectors of capital. You may disagree with the way the question is posed, you may disagree with the conclusions drawn, but to just dismiss the whole issue with a few sarcastic remarks (as both JK and BigLittleJ do here) is an expression of a profoundly sectarian approach not just to the ICC but to the entire marxist tradition, including those elements within who do generally meet with your approval like the council communists, since they were certainly directly influenced by Luxemburg's views on the national question.
Django: again, I don't think it's enough simply to state that imperialism was integral to the establishment of capitalism unless you first engage with the view of the marxists that imperialism expressed "a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital" as Luxemburg put it in The Junius Pamphlet, and unfortunately the AF pamphlet doesn't do this. As a result, there is a tendency to do what Bukharin for example criticises in Imperialism and World Economy and which is expressed in a caricatural form in BigLittleJ's post:
"a very widespread ‘theory' of imperialism defines it as the policy of conquest in general. From this point of view one can speak with equal right of Alexander the Macedonian's and the Spanish conqueror's imperialism, of the imperialism of Carthage and Ivan III, of ancient Rome and modern America, of Napoleon and Hindenburg.
[i]"Simple as this theory may be, it is absolutely untrue. It is untrue because it ‘explains' everything, i.e. it explains absolutely nothing... the same can be said about war. War serves to reproduce those relations on a wider scale. Simply to define war, however, as conquest, is entirely insufficient, for the simple reason that in doing so we fail to indicate the main thing, namely, what production relations are strengthened and extended by the war, what basis is widened by a given ‘policy of conquest"
Cited in our article 'On imperialism' (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/019/on-imperialism).
So, for a start, we have to distinguish capitalist imperialism from the imperialism/empire building of previous modes of production; and secondly we have to ask why the marxists did not see the early mercantile phase as being imperialism, but saw imperialism as a product of a certain stage in the "ripeness" of the capitalist mode of production - as an attempt to overcome the internal contradictions of developed capital, which were beginning to become a dangerous barrier to the accumulation process.
An opportunity? I am not sure... an impasse maybe