Radhika Desai, “Geopolitical Economy: The International Relations of the Capitalist System”

[@fufu3539]

Great to see critical theory which isnt insane. Look forward to the new Ben Norton, Hudson Desai material with Geopolitical Economy, which will FINALLY get the left to be more materialist.

[@dinnerwithfranklin]

Professor Desai never fails to educate. Thank you so much for this

[@rhorizon]

Thank you for this incredible presentation! Just wish the sound was better.

[@Rimulac]

Sound quality could be improved - these are important videos so it matters

[@psikeyhackr6914]

What is the geopolitics of planned obsolescence? What has happened to the depreciation of durable consumer goods since Sputnik? How many millions of automobiles have Americans trashed since Sputnik? Buy some consumer junk and it gets added to GDP. It wears out but does not get subtracted from anywhere. Economists do not mention much less explain Net Domestic Product.

[@dinnerwithfranklin]

Really good question. I've recently been wondering to myself how is capitalism the most efficient system in the world if we consider planned obsolescence.

[@jason8434]

Two thoughts: First, on imperialism, this was a pre-existing and ancient social form. India had the Mughal empire. Ethiopia was an empire well into the 20th century. Medieval Europe was the skeleton of the Roman empire held together by the Popes in Rome. My second related point is on nationalism, which unlike empire, was a modern invention. What held most "nations" together as collective identities was religion. Modern nationalism which emerged in the 1830s was a response to the fragmentation of the European left after the Napoleonic wars. Nationalism was a middle class movement, not a movement of the aristocrats (who supported each other across nations) nor of the masses (who still clung to church and emperor). Even the pre-nationalist business classes had reasons not to favor national unification e.g. why limit themselves to an Italian market when they could trade all over the Mediterranean. National imperialism was a unique product of the 19th century after 1830. It was tied up with industrialization and the competition for control of markets. Nationalism in the global south had to await the 20th century when it would emerge out of the alliance between traditional religion and mass poverty.

[@dinnerwithfranklin]

I am not sure that "imperialism... was a pre-existing and ancient social form." It is ancient but it was always first and foremost an economic move. It could be argued that a society develops to protect the economic system so in that sense I can see how it would be a social form but imperialism has always been to gain more territory and the resources of that territory so it primarily economic.

[@jason8434]

@dinnerwithfranklin2451 But consider that "economics" before the modern age was a private matter. Economics or "oikonomia" meant the management of the domestic household. It was the modern bourgeoisie that developed the idea of "political economy" which made economics a public matter i.e. it collectivized individual consumption as the basis of political society, also known as commercial republicanism. Empire was not economic but political, it was the investment of political command in one person, first on victorious generalsl and later on Caesar and his successors. Empire was about the concentration of political power in a centralized imperium or authority. In the Roman Empire, the extension of the empire included Roman citizenship, it was not just brute resource extraction. This is why the tribes of Europe began to overrun Rome toward the end of the empire, not because they wanted to overthrow it, but because they wanted to be included in its polity. Even after Rome ceased to control the economic resources of the empire, Roman political institutions were carried on into medieval Europe.

[@dinnerwithfranklin]

@@jason8434 What was the point of expanding your borders if it gained you no economic benefit and, in fact, cost you resources? Those who are of a certain class or gifted intellectually today are granted citizenship of the country they go to. Why? It is because they benefit the country economically. For example I'd say that the relative ease an engineer gains citizenship in the U.S is not comparable to the ease with which a philosopher does. Economics underpins political power and always has. The distribution of the wealth has changed certainly but it does not negate that fact.

[@jason8434]

@@dinnerwithfranklin I disagree, political power underpins economics. There needs to be a polity before you can have an economy for that polity. Granting citizenship to foreign high-skilled workers is a political determination, it makes no difference to the economy whether those workers come from India or Iran, but it makes a lot of difference politically. The nation-state is a political creation, of course the national economy is a prime driver of national action, but it is the determination of political power which creates a national economy in the first place. This is what the US Civil War was about, the creation of a national market and industrial economy. Prior to that, the South was basically an economic dependency of Britain. Empire is an extension of political rule, the very word "imperium" refers to political power. Americans can go all over the world and perfirm economic activity, but what makes them American is not where they came from, it's their political integration into the US nation-state.

[@dinnerwithfranklin]

@@jason8434 Okay then. What political power does Burundi have? And why does Burundi have practically no political power? I would say it is because it has a weak economy but you say it is for some other reason?

[@mysticmouse7261]

U of M my alma mater.