Imperialism is Capitalism

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Darius871


Just out of curiousity, how would you propose that we "categorize" myriad social systems based on the sole variable of "complexity"? Would it be by measuring the number of social "transactions" (define that term however you wish) in a given space or per capita during a given period of time? Or something else?

Measuring complexity is a bit nonsensical, so much is clear to anyone by simply looking up the word in a dictionary. But something that can be referred to as complexity might be measurable.

Someone may propose something as simple as specialization but that is not a sign of complexity in itself. You can imagine a very complex system built of nearly identical units

Another idea might be based on group interaction, since to be a member of a group you must have more intensive direct or indirect contact with its members than with others. Once you would have a good group theory going you could easily analyze how the groups interact with each other, each level of additional “supergroups” would be a step towards greater “complexity”. But using groups for that purpose would be folly. If not anything else defining them would be a painful process even if you were generic to the extreme and settled with “types”. Also cultural bias could corrupt the data into anything you wanted & expected.

Now If you want you can reduce the situation to social transactions, but those are a bit tricky and you would end up measuring their intensity. Not useful for seeing patterns. Perhaps indirect interactions are salvageable in this regard? Indirect interactions mean a highly interconnected society but fall considerably short of just random background.

Let’s say a stone age tribesman living in an isolated tribe would only ever experience direct interactions in his “society”. Now sure another tribe might kill off all the buffalo in the region indirectly affecting them, but this is flawed thinking, we are studying the “society” here we are not studying the whole ecosystem. Now if the foreign tribes had regular contact with the caveman’s tribe, if they traded, or if perhaps the tirbe leader was subservient to other tribe, then we can talk about indirect influences inside a society. If we choose this we would have to be doubly careful in determining society “borders”. Falling into a holistic approach is a even more apparent danger. The more distant the source of the indirect interaction (the higher the supposed complexity of the society) the harder it would become to determine if it is “real” or if it is just background radiation so to speak.

Originally posted by Darius871

I'm just finding it hard to see what your ultimate point is, even if I suppose that your basic premise is correct.

It’s a little thought experiment that assumes that there exists an objective criteria by which to gauge societal change and by which to categories societies, even if the criteria carries very little information about the society. Since only in such a system could we with even slight certainty speak of “necessary transitions” from one state to the other or even possible equivalence among some (I refer to “capitalism” in the same manner as I refer to imperialism after the 18th century simply as “Imperialism”) types of seemingly unrelated concepts.

[CrONoS]

I thought I could pay my study that way... it seems that I'll be forced to do the street ...

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Then what the **** did you mean by this:

the only possible way to categorize them is according to how complex a system they can form.

Same category != Same thing

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Measuring complexity is a bit nonsensical, so much is clear to anyone by simply looking up the word in a dictionary. But something that can be referred to as complexity might be measurable.

Someone may propose something as simple as specialization but that is not a sign of complexity in itself. You can imagine a very complex system built of nearly identical units

Another idea might be based on group interaction, since to be a member of a group you must have more intensive direct or indirect contact with its members than with others. Once you would have a good group theory going you could easily analyze how the groups interact with each other, each level of additional “supergroups” would be a step towards greater “complexity”. But using groups for that purpose would be folly. If not anything else defining them would be a painful process even if you were generic to the extreme and settled with “types”. Also cultural bias could corrupt the data into anything you wanted & expected.

Now If you want you can reduce the situation to social transactions, but those are a bit tricky and you would end up measuring their intensity. Not useful for seeing patterns. Perhaps indirect interactions are salvageable in this regard? Indirect interactions mean a highly interconnected society but fall considerably short of just random background.

Let’s say a stone age tribesman living in an isolated tribe would only ever experience direct interactions in his “society”. Now sure another tribe might kill off all the buffalo in the region indirectly affecting them, but this is flawed thinking, we are studying the “society” here we are not studying the whole ecosystem. Now if the foreign tribes had regular contact with the caveman’s tribe, if they traded, or if perhaps the tirbe leader was subservient to other tribe, then we can talk about indirect influences inside a society. If we choose this we would have to be doubly careful in determining society “borders”. Falling into a holistic approach is a even more apparent danger. The more distant the source of the indirect interaction (the higher the supposed complexity of the society) the harder it would become to determine if it is “real” or if it is just background radiation so to speak.

Oh how I mourn for the behaviorist school...

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Darius871


Oh how I mourn for the behaviorist school...

Post-Skinnerian or turn of the century?

[Darius871]

You're thinking psychology; I'm simply talking about an approach where the general social sciences reluctantly acknowledged that they could only be remotely "scientific" by measuring objective facts (which can only be seen in human behaviors) and then analysing statistical patterns in said measurements, with strict adherence to the scientific method used to great avail in the natural sciences, so as to grasp at least a slim chance of ascertaining truth.

This approach which was widely popular if not hegemonic at least in U.S. academia during the mid-20th century and was getting on the right track, but by the time the 1970's rolled around, the social sciences lapsed back into a cacophony of purely theoretical, quasi-philosophical fluff which, while often making for fascinating mental masturbation for ex-hippy academics, had and continues to have no substance or practical use. Try to guess which epistemological era your theory falls under.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
You are right a few references are in order. I'll dig a few up in the morning. In any case referencing people is dangerus if you haven't read all that they have written.

Not referencing is even worse because it makes you blabber about things you have no clue about.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Zkribbler's definition of imperialism is a very old one. When Marxists use the term, it refers to the colonialism of the previous centuries, especially the previous two. Specifically, we understand imperialism by the analysis of Lenin in his 1916 work, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

Lenin's theory is a joke. Surprisingly capitalism - which he saw with imperialism not only in his "highest" form, but also in decline from there, even dying - is still there, while 'his' system is gone. The global revolution he predicted in the intro to the French and German editions of his work from 1920 didn't happen, and his economical idea that we would get monopolies everywhere which end competition and stop technical progress doesn't seem to work as well.

[classical_hero]

Originally posted by CrONoS


Nah...
We had a thread(while you were Lurking or Gone away) made by Oerdin about a 48inch pizza that he bought... I think I never ever laugh so hard while reading a thread.

Yeah I am just sitting back eating some and enjoying the show that Heraclitus is putting on for us. Bravo man for entertaining us.

[Arrian]

The answer is no, if the question is "are Imperialism and Capitalism the same thing/inextricably intertwined."

I think it's pretty obviously not the case. One can be capitalistic and not imperialistic (Che will argue, I'm sure), and one can CERTAINLY be imperialistic w/o being capitalist. I seem to recall a certain recent empire, sadly no longer with us... (sad Putin).

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Heraclitus





Same category != Same thing

"The only possible way..."

If two things cannot be separated by any aspects then they are the same.

[Ecthy]

Yeah, it's like Lenin said... you look at who would benefit and... you know...

Donnie: I'm the Walrus? I'm the Walrus!

[KrazyHorse]

Shut the **** up, Donnie.

[Ecthy]

Donnie, please.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro


Lenin's theory is a joke. Surprisingly capitalism - which he saw with imperialism not only in his "highest" form, but also in decline from there, even dying - is still there, while 'his' system is gone. The global revolution he predicted in the intro to the French and German editions of his work from 1920 didn't happen, and his economical idea that we would get monopolies everywhere which end competition and stop technical progress doesn't seem to work as well.

It's getting more and more imperialistic (read more monopolistic).