>The problem of capitalism and imperialism is not that poor nations do not
>make any economic progress in absolute terms (though the absolute decline
>may be the lot of the least developed region like Africa). The undeniable
>empirical fact is that *the longer capitalism goes on, the larger the
>disparity between rich and poor nations has and will become* (to say
>nothing of the ruling class of rich nations and the poorest poor of the
>poorest nations). In short, the capitalist terms of engagement between
>rich and poor nations is "for richer *and* poorer." If you are the worker
>outside the capitalist core, the richer you get in absolute terms, the
>astonishingly poorer you become in relative terms. And there is _no_
>catching up -- ever. Not even in East Asia.
No one has disputed that. It's a pretty solid empirical fact, acknowledged even by World Bank economist Lant Pritchett, in a paper called "Divergence, Big Time" <http://www.worldbank.org/growth/abs1522.htm>. (Pritchett is the unacknowledged author of Larry Summers' infamous "toxic waste" memo, and, as LBO subscribers learned in an article written by a Bank insider, cheered Joe Stiglitz' resignation - so he's no softie.) The question is how much the prosperity of the North depends on the immiseration of the South. Is it that the South is largely excluded from value production, or that the value is parasitically sucked away? I'm asking because I'd like to know, not because, as you claimed earlier, I'm trying to prove some unspoken political point.
Doug