this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
771 readers
1 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My understanding is that imperialism as a stage of capitalism is distinct because it underdevelops the means of production in order to superexploit labor and generate superprofits. Elimination of artisanal mining isn't just an improvement of working conditions, it's a strong indicator that there is true development of the means of production. Whatever problems there are with the relationship, without underdevelopment there isn't superexploitation. Thus, not imperialism.
I think.
Honestly I've only been reading theory for, like, a year. I am not confident in my assessment!
That's a semantic justification of what is, in practice, imperialism or at least, imperialism light.
In practice working conditions are improving, industrial capacity is increasing, infrastructure is being built, the means of production are being developed. That doesn't happen under imperialism, imperialism is marked by the production of superprofits through superexploitation, which is what makes imperialism a distinct stage of capitalism.
Foreign investment isn't automatically imperialist, otherwise it would be imperialism when a foreign company opens a mine in the US.