{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","title":"Zombie Capitalism Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9781608461042","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","id":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","uuid":"4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","title":"Zombie Capitalism Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx","normalized_title":"zombiecapitalismglobalcrisisandtherelevanceofmarx","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9781608461042","isbns":["9781608461042"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":426,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Zombie%20Capitalism%20Global%20Crisis%20and%20the%20Relevance%20of%20Marx","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/4a3d22bd-c5b9-47a4-a022-bd35d44d9bfe/search"},"page":{"printed_page":97,"pdf_page":97,"physical_index":97,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"0e281e35baf296b1fa64c8b8531322c386d23f20719e01dfdae201a49d777c01"},"chapter":"Zombie Capitalism Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx","content":"same period Britain, France, Russia and Germany each established colonial enclaves and wide spheres of influence in China; Japan took over Korea and Taiwan; France conquered all of Indochina; the US seized Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spain; and Britain and Russia agreed to an informal partitioning of Iran.\n\nAt the same time there was a massive growth in the export of capital from Britain, still the biggest capitalist economy and the centre of the world financial system, even if the US and Germany were rapidly catching up in industrial output. Total British investment in foreign bonds rose from £95 million in 1883 to £393 million in 1 889. It soon equalled 8 percent of Britain's gross national product and absorbed 50 percent of savings.40 Not all exports of capital, let alone of goods, went to the colonies. Much went to the US and quite a lot went to Latin American countries like Argentina. But the colonies were important. Britain's biggest colony, India, alone accounted for 12 percent of exported goods and 1 1 percent of capital exports; it also provided a surplus to Britain's balance of payments that could help pay for investments elsewhere in the world; and it provided Britain, free of charge, with an army for conquering other places.41 The raw materials required for the most technologically advanced industries of the time came from colonial areas (vegetable oils for margarine and soap manufacture, copper for the electrical industry, rubber and oil for the fledgling automobile industry, nitrates for fertilisers and explosives). On top of this, there was the strategic importance of the colonies. What mattered for both politicians and industrial interests was that \"Britain ruled the waves\" and could use its bases in the colonies to punish states that threatened those interests.\n\nIt hardly seemed a coincidence to the theorists of imperialism that the decades which witnessed this massive expansion of colonisation, of exports of capital and of extraction of raw materials also saw the recovery of profitability and markets from the gloom of the Great Depression. They may not always have managed to theorise this clearly, but the coincidence of empire and capitalist boom was real enough.\n\nThe Lenin-Bukharin theory therefore stands up as an account of the pre-World War One decades-and of the drive to war. Nevertheless, there was a weakness in Lenin's version of the theory. It generalised from the experience of British imperialism at the end of the 19th century to the whole of imperialism, and tended to make the entire theory rest upon the key role of the\n\nBeyond Marx: Monopoly, War and the State\n\n97","previous_page":96,"next_page":98}