From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Feb 18 2007 - 19:10:26 EST
Jurriaan: Thanks for the very useful bibliographic references! A brief question concerning the following: > <snip, JL> New Zealand featured a kind of "settler capitalism", to borrow >Donald > Denoon's concept, in some ways an economically dependent country, and in > other ways a politically independent country. Its political history, > although obviously informed by European influences, deviated sharply from > European models in important ways. > > Spectacularly, the Marxists and Marxist-Leninists could not even agree > whether post-war New Zealand was a colony, a semi-colony, an intermediate > country, an imperialist country, or a junior partner of imperialism, i.e. > they could not agree about its place in the world market and in the > international states system, never mind articulating the social meaning of > local experience or devising an effective political strategy. In the first paragraph above you suggest that there was "settler capitalism" in NZ, but -- unless I missed something -- you didn't take a position on whether post-war NZ is a colony, semi-colony, an intermediate country (whatever that means), an imperialist nation, or a "junior partner" of imperialism. Are you saying that NZ is best thought of as a settler capitalist nation _rather than_ these alternative designations or _in addition_ to one of them? If the latter, which one? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 28 2007 - 00:00:08 EST