From Imperialism to Dependency - 2

From Imperialism to Dependency - 2

Indeed, one can reconstruct Lenin's argument

as follows. The more international capital becomes

(i.e., the more it does not recognize national

boundaries), the more states will compete

with each other for capital. The autonomy of states

refers to their "freedom" to induce capital to invest

within particular national boundaries. The

changing status of the state in relation to capital

is akin to the transition from serf to wage laborer,

from bondage to formally free labor. In short,

increasing formal autonomy, far from indicating

an increasing strength of the state, reflects a

transformation in the character of its subordination

to capital. This transformation of world capitalism

is reflected in recent theorizing about the

autonomy of the state. Such a vision of the world

economy sheds light on current interest in "dependent

development" and "bringing the state

back in" (Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol

1985). But if my analysis is correct, to recognize

the formal autonomy of the state is also to recognize

its actual weakness in the present configuration

of world capitalism.

What, then, is the significance of imperialism?

Imperialism is the vehicle though which capitalism

becomes truly international, whereby it plants

itself in economically underdeveloped countries

and from there repatriates profits to core countries.

But once capitalism has established itself at

a world level, direct political control of less developed

countries is no longer necessary and colonialism

loses its raison d'etre. The external

constraints of capitalism become internalized

within countries in the form of class alliances and

class formation (Cardoso and Faletto 1979). As

Warren (1980), has put it, imperialism is the pioneer

of capitalism, or turning Lenin on his head,

capitalism is the highest stage of imperialism.