definitions of capital, centre, periphery

[Chris Burford]

I'll try to answer the question. The concept of the centralisation and
concentration of capital can be extended from capitalist companies to whole
capitalist economies if you take the wider definition of capital, variable
as well as constant capital, into account. 

It is clear that the balance of flows favours the accumulation of this
wider definition including an educated workforce with suggicient purchasing
power for a mass sophisticated market, in the metropolitan imperialist
countries.

Does that do violence to either marxism or the empirical data?

Chris Burford

London

At 07:29 19/02/99 +0000, you wrote:
>At 16:28 18/02/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>Then Japan is the mother of centers and NY is the mother of the periphery.
>>A better defintion would that centers are places that benefit more from
>>capital that passes through it.
>>
>>Henry
>>
>>Doug Henwood wrote:
>>
>>> "By definition, the center is the provider of capital, the periphery the
>>> recipient." - George Soros, The Crisis of Global Capitalism, p. 120
>
>My understanding is that from a marxist point of view, the tendency for the
>concentration and  centralisation of capital is a long term tendency. I
>have assumed that applies to societies and not just companies.
>
>How could the definitions above be made more compatible with that
perspective?
>
>Chris Burford
>
>London
>
>