---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Asfilho@aol.com
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:15:06 EST
Jerry says:
>I don't know that it is the case that one country exploits others. Wouldn't
> it be more accurate to say that one *state* contributes to the
exploitation
> and oppression of workers and peasants in other countries?
It doesn't really matter if you say country or state. My question is *what
is
the international process of exploitation?* If marxists are to have a theory
of imperialism - indeed, if we want to use this word - we must have an
explanation for this process.
However, Jerry may be using a looser ("political") definition of
imperialism
(sorry, I am not clear about this, Jerry). Then it would be as if the US,
for
example, shored up local bourgeoisies to support their extraction of surplus
value at home. This is likely, but *why* would the US state do this? Purely
for political gain, or is there an economic gain too? Note that in
traditional marxist theories of imperialism it seems that there is a purely
economic process of exploitation going on.
Jerry says:
>Who benefits? The ruling class of the imperialist nation, right? How?
Well,
> that's a bit more complicated. We could talk about the role of
transnational
> corporations in modern imperialism (which frequently require state
> protection), we could talk about markets in the imperialised nations, we
> could talk about raw materials that become elements of constant
circulating
> capital and commodities that go into the reproduction of labour-power, we
> could talk about the international migration of labour power, we could
talk
> about the economic benefits of war, and, of course, there is the issue
raised
> by David Y concerning the so-called "aristocracy of labor" in the
imperialist
> nations. Sounds like a lot of important stuff to discuss.
This seems to indicate that we cannot have a single, integrated theory of
imperialism. This looks like the counter-tendencies to the LTRPF: a range
of
processes at different levels, not necessarily connected between them. This
is possible, but, again, traditional marxist theories of imperialism are
not
like that. They indicate that there is one "general" process running in the
background, even if other process and phenomena may be influential at other
levels of analysis.
Alfredo.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST