>as Doug says, there are flaws in the Marxian argument that with the
>progression of global capital there arises a global civilisation - a flaw
>that arises from the progressivist attachments of various marxisms to be
>sure. but I wouldn't particularly pattern it as core and periphery, nor
>would I argue there is an inability to push deterritorialisation further [1].
>there are ways of territorialising a low-wage 'periphery' at the heart of the
>cosmopolitan 'core', and I think Doug has mentioned sweatshops in NY before.
Oh yes, we've got 'em, and some of them are unionized even! But I think there's a difference between sweatshops in the metropolitan core - staffed by immigrant workers deep in debt to the "snakeheads" who smuggled them in - and regions of the world that are largely excluded from the circuit of capital. That is, there's a sense in which Mexico, though peripheral relative to the U.S., has been incorporated into the circuits of capital while Bolivia, say, remains largely excluded. With "development" capital these days largely privatized, and official institutions like the World Bank taking a back seat to flows of portfolio and direct investment, the periphery has been sharply hierarchicalized, with Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, etc. enjoying a special status as favored investment targets, and other areas, like Africa and the Caribbean, almost completely marginalized.
Doug