Sub Imperialism Primitive Accumulation And State Formation

This volume addresses the ‘impoverishment of state theory’ over the last decades and insists on the continued salience of class analysis to the study of capitalist states – neoliberal restructuring, the political architecture of imperialism, and the potentials for democratic transformation.

Sub-Imperialism Revisited is a theoretically rigorous study by the brilliant Mexican analyst Adrián Sotelo Valencia. Sotelo systematically explores the "sub-imperialism" thesis as advanced in the pioneering work of Ruy Mauro Marini. Readers will appreciate why radical dependency theory remains more relevant today than ever.

People around the world are confused and concerned. Is it a sign of strength or of weakness that the US has suddenly shifted from a politics of consensus to one of coercion on the world stage? What was really at stake in the war on Iraq? Was it all about oil and, if not, what else was involved? What role has a sagging economy played in pushing the US into foreign adventurism and what difference does it make that neo-conservatives rather than neo-liberals are now in power? What exactly is the relationship between US militarism abroad and domestic politics? These are the questions taken up in this compelling and original book. Closely argued but clearly written, 'The New Imperialism' builds a conceptual framework to expose the underlying forces at work behind these momentous shifts in US policies and politics. The compulsions behind the projection of US power on the world as a 'new imperialism' are here, for the first time, laid bare for all to see. This new paperback edition contains an Afterword written to coincide with the result of the 2004 American presidental election.

The pamphlet here presented to the reader was written in the spring of 1916, in Zurich. In the conditions in which I was obliged to work there I naturally suffered somewhat from a shortage of French and English literature and from a serious dearth of Russian literature. However, I made use of the principal English work on imperialism, the book by J. A. Hobson, with all the care that, in my opinion, work deserves. This pamphlet was written with an eye to the tsarist censorship. Hence, I was not only forced to confine myself strictly to an exclusively theoretical, specifically economic analysis of facts, but to formulate the few necessary observations on politics with extreme caution, by hints, in an allegorical language—in that accursed Aesopian language—to which tsarism compelled all revolutionaries to have recourse whenever they took up the pen to write a “legal” work. It is painful, in these days of liberty, to re-read the passages of the pamphlet which have been distorted, cramped, compressed in an iron vice on account of the censor. That the period of imperialism is the eve of the socialist revolution; that social-chauvinism (socialism in words, chauvinism in deeds) is the utter betrayal of socialism, complete desertion to the side of the bourgeoisie; that this split in the working-class movement is bound up with the objective conditions of imperialism, etc.—on these matters I had to speak in a “slavish” tongue, and I must refer the reader who is interested in the subject to the articles I wrote abroad in 1914-17, a new edition of which is soon to appear. In order to show the reader, in a guise acceptable to the censors, how shamelessly untruthful the capitalists and the social-chauvinists who have deserted to their side (and whom Kautsky opposes so inconsistently) are on the question of annexations; in order to show how shamelessly they screen the annexations of their capitalists, I was forced to quote as an example—Japan! The careful reader will easily substitute Russia for Japan, and Finland, Poland, Courland, the Ukraine, Khiva, Bokhara, Estonia or other regions peopled by non-Great Russians, for Korea. I trust that this pamphlet will help the reader to understand the fundamental economic question, that of the economic essence of imperialism, for unless this is studied, it will be impossible to understand and appraise modern war and modern politics.

Colonisation of South Africa began on April 8, 1652 when a force of 90 men under the command of Von Riebeeck of the Dutch East India Company occupied the Cape. The Dutch rule lasted for a little less than 150 years. The British army took over when it defeated the Dutch forces in Europe in 1795 and remained till 1993. This book is a modest attempt to capture the economic and social history of this region spanning this period of White domination. The book is divided in five parts. Part I discusses in detail the Dutch and the early rule in South Africa. The main socio-economic event of the Dutch Colonisation was the introduction of slavery in March 1658. Interestingly, the slaves out¬numbered white colonist for nearly 100 years resulting in a dominant and overwhelmingly large proportion of the colony's output being contributed by the slaves. Part II and III cover the early British rule of 1806-1902. It also covers the Great Boer Trek of 1834-1850 and four Imperialist wars, two each against the Zulu's and the Boers including the second Boer War of 1899-1902. This part also covers the evolution and growth of capitalism in South Africa in agriculture, mining and manufacturing industry. Part IV describes the destabilisation of Southern African states by Apartheid South Africa. Part V finally discusses the dependence syndrome in Southern Africa. There has been considerable worldwide interest on the subject of independence of South Africa and the role of its architect Mr. Nelson Mandela. There is unanimity that he has empowered the local people and there is a democratic government in place giving due recognition to the majority of population. South Africa has over the last two decades emerged as a regional Power and has the potential to help neighbouring states in their economic and political development.

The idea that the period of social turbulence in the nineteenth century was a consequence of the emergence of the powerful Zulu kingdom under Shaka has been written about extensively as a central episode of southern African history. Considerable dynamic debate has focused on the idea that this period – the ‘mfecane’- left much of the interior depopulated, thereby justifying white occupation. One view is that ‘the time of troubles’ owed more to the Delagoa Bay Slave trade and the demands of the labour-hungry Cape colonists than to Shaka’s empire building. But is there sufficient evidence to support the argument? The Mfecane Aftermath investigates the very nature of historical debate and examines the uncertain foundations of much of the previous historiography.

The Griqua people are commonly misunderstood. Today, they do not figure in the South African imagination as other peoples do, nor have they for over a century. This book argues that their comparative invisibility is a result of their place in the national narrative. In this revisionist analysis of South African historiography, the author analyses over a century's worth of historical studies and identifies a number of narrative frameworks that have proven resilient to change over this time. The Griqua, in particular, have fared poorly compared to other peoples. They appear in, and disappear from, this body of work in a number of consistent ways, almost as though scholars have avoided re-imagining their history in ways relevant to the present. This book questions why that might be the case.