Re Julian's [6677]: Previously I wrote: > One example of non-economic gain: the (former, hopefully) > testing of nuclear devices in the Pacific by the US and French > militaries. While this didn't result in economic gain necessarily, > I think it could surely be viewed as international exploitation > (using the term somewhat more loosely that Marx did in > _Capital_ Volume 1: perhaps we need to have a discussion > about the distinction between exploitation and oppression?). Julian then asks some difficult questions: > With "exploitation" reserved for "economic", and "oppression" for > everything else? That is a thorny question because a dominant group or class can be able to gain, through other forms of domination, _economic_ gain from other groups and classes through other means than the process of extracting surplus-value from labour-power. E.g. there are economic gains that have traditionally arisen for men, due to the dominant role of patriarchy within "modern" social formations, within the context of the nuclear family such as food preparation, cleaning, etc. In this case that relation is not a formal relation of capitalist exchange _but_ surely if we are to call it "oppression" (as distinct from "exploitation") then there has to be a "economic" component to oppression. > Fair enough, but of course in "Capital" exploitation is reserved for the > process of extracting surplus value from labour-power. See above. > Is it the case that everything in the nexus of economic wrongs which > "imperialism" denotes is reducible to exploitation in this sense? No, I don't think so. When traditional societies were forcibly re-located in the Pacific for the purposes of nuclear testing, this was (in part) an "economic wrong" even though it occurred outside of the process of extracting surplus-value from labour-power (was this a 20th Century example of "enclosure"?). When land was seized from Palestinians by the Israeli military I would again say that was clearly an "economic wrong" even though it can't be reducible to the exploitation of wage-labour by capital. BTW, words can not adequately express the *RAGE* that I feel now concerning the the escalation of the genocide directed by the Sharon government against the Palestinians: it makes me feel like I should be out on the street fighting! (in fact, I think I'll try to find-out if there are any demonstrations happening today in New York City). Does anyone else want to discuss this? And, of course, pre-capitalist forms of exploitation continue to persist in many parts of the world (e.g. there are millions of people in the world today that perform bonded labour). Even if we might not agree on whether that labour produces surplus value (as distinct from a surplus product), there is _still_ exploitation going on _even if_ it can't be reducible to the extraction of surplus value from wage- labour. > And to the extent that it is, is it necessarily helpful to emphasise this > aspect in every concrete case -- for example, commodity cartels (coffee, > rather than oil, perhaps)? Coffee production, in part, still involves peasant farmering and bonded labour (even though it has increasingly come to be dominated by agro- business and transnational corporations which employ agricultural wage- labourers), right? > On the other hand, characterising all these non-labour exploitation issues > simply as "oppression" seems to provide insufficient nuance. The fact that > Honduras, say, suffers from its dependence on banana exports is not quite > the same thing as having one's home seized for use as a military base > (e.g. Diego Garcia). Agreed. > Hopefully (but not very much so) French (European?) nuclear tests in the > Pacific are a thing of the past. Yes, finally after world-wide protests against the French government's plan to explode nuclear devices at Morunoa (those 'tests' took place in 1995-6 despite those protests), the French government agreed afterwards to cease all further nuclear testing. In 1996 the South Pacific officially became a nuclear-test-free zone with the signing in Suva of the protocols to the South Pacific Nuclear-free Zone treaty by France, Britain, and the US. > But one should bear in mind the importance of France's *American* colony of > Guiana to the European space programme -- necessary if the EU is to preserve > independent capacity in telecommunications, as Will Hutton was pointing out > in the Observer last Sunday. > France's presence in Guiana is probably economically beneficial to the > inhabitants, in the sense that their incomes are higher than otherwise (and > they are also part of, indeed citizens of, the EU). > Nonetheless, they are placed in a dependent relationship with their colonial > patrons. > One might call this oppression, but not if this word also has to bear some > economic connotation. On that last point we are agreed! In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EST