ŷ������

Debating “A Theory of Imperialism����

Preamble:
--Having spent time dissecting this book’s sequel (see: Capital and Imperialism: Theory, History, and the Present), which systematically applies “A Theory of Imperialism�� to the major periods of modern history (colonial/inter-war/post-WWII/Neoliberal globalization), I’ll avoid duplicating that review.
--Since I finished the sequel first, my main reason in finishing this dense book is for Marxist geographer David Harvey’s critique of the book, and the Patnaiks�� response, which make up the last 2 chapters; so, I’ll use this review to unpack this academic turf-war.
...TL;DR summary: how central is the legacy of the colonial division of labour (esp. plantation system) to modern capitalism?

Harvey vs. the Patnaiks?:
--I believe I have a balanced approach in unpacking this, given:
a) On Harvey’s side (British-American geographer), I study geography (favourite prof: Jim Glassman); I've also benefited greatly from Harvey’s lectures for A Companion to Marx's Capital, etc.
b) On the Patnaiks�� side (Indian political economists), their Indian comrade/historian Vijay Prashad has inspired my interest in Global South perspectives to re-balance Western-centric Leftism ().
--This confrontation played out like the Western stereotype of the Cold War; a lot of build-up while direct confrontation was avoided. (Note: in reality, the Cold War featured many nasty “hot�� conflicts in the “periphery��, many involving Western reactions against the South’s decolonization: The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World):

1) Reluctance to use “imperialism��:
--On the surface, Harvey’s avoidance of conceptualizing “imperialism�� for contemporary times actually seems quite useful in avoiding needless divisiveness on the Left (esp. from a Western Leftist), as he wants to avoid mixing the term to describe asymmetrical trade relations of a rising Asia with the West’s colonial legacy. Instead, Harvey wants to focus on “shifting hegemonies�� and “uneven geographical development��.
--However, the Patnaiks�� are clear that their “theory of imperialism�� is not to completely replace existing theories of imperialism (which primarily focus on surface events like wars/conquest; indeed, Harvey is a prime example of this with his The New Imperialism during the War on Terror/Iraq!), but to extend the concept to the totality of capitalism’s history and re-position theory to include critical Global South perspectives. Hence, the Patnaiks�� presents “a theory�� rather than “the theory�� of imperialism.

2) “Geographical Determinism��?:
--“Unfortunately, [the Patnaiks] get their concepts of space, place, environment, and geography all wrong.�� -Harvey
…Harvey’s nuclear threat against the Patnaiks is “geographical determinism��, probably highlighted by the Patnaiks�� chapters on material asymmetry of the South’s superior resources. Harvey applies Marx’s dialectical approach in his “dynamic geography�� that focuses on social relations, rejecting the crude physical geography of an-atlas-is-my-Bible Jared Diamond/Jeffrey D. Sachs.
--However, Harvey’s nukes seem to point straight up, as his characterization clouds his further critiques. He seems to ironically slip into a physical geographer himself as he finds offense by the Patnaiks�� varied use of “tropical��, “sub-tropical��, “periphery��, “South��, demanding precision by considering various physical conditions/exceptions. The Patnaiks shrugs this off in a sentence, but I would be interested in the Patnaiks turning the nukes around and elaborating on the social relations of these terms.
--Harvey of course knows the social relations where the Global South is forced by the Global North to export rather than feed themselves. I’m reminded of Michael Hudson’s stark description of the World Bank as the most evil organization in the world in its attempt to systematically rule the Global South by starvation, forcing cash crop exportation thus dependency on the US's heavily-subsidized food grains (Super Imperialism: The Origin and Fundamentals of U.S. World Dominance; ).
--The Patnaiks�� main response to “geographical determinism�� is their position that the South can socially improve their material output via land augmentation, but this requires mass mobilization/infrastructure which contradicts imperialist social relations:
-colonial de-industrialization: Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
-decolonization’s social mobilization: Prashad's The Darker Nations: A People's History of the Third World
-Neoliberal reaction to decolonization: The Agrarian Question in the Neoliberal Era: Primitive Accumulation and the Peasantry, The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South and The Divide: A Brief Guide to Global Inequality and its Solutions
--China of course exemplifies the contradictions of the messy real world, but where is China’s equivalence of the World Bank/IMF/WTO intellectual property regime/Wall Street financialization/petrodollar hegemony (not to mention global military bases/media/education/Hollywood)? For someone so focused on dialectics, I did not see enough of weighing the contradictions regarding China in Harvey’s A Brief History of Neoliberalism. This is a problem with replacing “imperialism�� with “shifting hegemonies��/asymmetrical trade (which can be as benign as between California vs. Nevada).

3) End of drain?:
--“The historical draining of wealth from East to West for more than two centuries has, for example, been largely reversed over the last thirty years.�� -Harvey
…This of course reminds me of ; I try to limit my use of individualist identity, but I cannot help being reminded of the Indian-British dynamics here. It is amusing how Harvey muddles his precise-geographical-terms critique by adding in “East��/“West��, but the much-greater blunder here is the crude portrayal of “historical draining of wealth��, which Utsa Patnaik has done important work on regarding colonial India.
--Indeed, Harvey briefly recognizes the Patnaiks�� distinctions for the South’s reserve army of labour (see later), but:
i) Seems to brush aside the Patnaiks�� comparisons with the triangular colonial arrangement (the “ideal�� capitalist system where capitalist leader Britain offered its domestic market + colonial loot to its newly-industrializing capitalist rivals of Europe/settler colonies which sustained global capitalist demand, all at the cost of the colonies).
ii) Again focuses on physical materials (“Depriving the metropolis of coffee, tea, bananas, cacao, peppers, and spices might provoke revolutionary thoughts in metropolitan populations who are used to such products, but this is hardly a convincing basis for a theory of imperialism.�� -Harvey) and missing the Patnaiks�� social argument on capitalist contradictions: a money-using economy where money serves as both means-of-exchange and store-of-wealth, thus increasing prices of materials (from capitalist growth's demands + imperialist suppression of supply) risks wealth-holders shifting from holding money to holding commodities (esp. gold, due to rising commodity prices) which threatens the money-using system of capitalism.

Citizens must be given grounds to expect that the value of money is going to be stable. To display how well understood this point was among economic thinkers of an earlier era, the Patnaiks unearth a gorgeous quote from Keynes which refers to Lenin: “Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalistic System was to debauch the currency �� Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency.�� (The Economic Consequences of the Peace). [Emphasis added; from Forward by Akeel Bilgrami]

…Part of Harvey’s dismissal stems from US production: “super-efficient and highly subsidized production of sugar, rice, cotton, and citrus allows for a subtropical component within a metropolitan capitalist economy, and this component is highly competitive with tropical producers both at home and abroad��. The Patnaiks counter with the contradiction of “super-efficient�� vs. “highly subsidized��, as the latter reveals a glimmer of the high energy costs (on top of capitalism being an externalizing machine of social/environmental costs!). Europe/Japan rely on even greater subsidies, and once again we have to return to social relations of Global North’s astronomical all-seasons demand.

4) Synthesis?:
--This academic turf war reminds me of the one waging between anarchist anthropologist/archaeologist David Graeber/David Wengrow (The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity) and Marxists anthropologists Chris Knight/Nancy Lindisfarne/Jonathan Neale etc. (); …rhetorical flailing replacing critical synthesis:
i) Strawman distractions: both sides of both debates are clearly more comfortable hammering non-participants in the form of vulgar reductionists (universal bashing of the aforementioned mainstream geographical determinists Diamond/Sachs) than carefully addressing each other. Both Harvey and the Patnaiks distance themselves from Karl August Wittfogel (“Oriental Despotism�� on Asian states) and economists (including Marxist economists of the Global North).
ii) Actual agreements: both Harvey and the Patnaiks are contending with the “contradiction between the territorial logic of state interests and the molecular logic of capital flow��, resulting in shared observations particularly for Neoliberal globalization. Harvey refers to World-Systems theory's Giovanni Arrighi, so I would be interested for the Patnaiks to synthesize this with Samir Amin etc.

…See comments below for rest of review��