---------- 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