> 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.
>
I thought part of the point of this discussion was some kind claim that capitalism was necessarily imperialist--i.e. that the core "requires" the periphery, however defined, in order to extract its wealth. Now you seem to be using the terms interchangably, which begs the question. Disparity of wealth does not mean that the primary source of the center's wealth is the periphery.
No catching up? How do you account for postwar Japan? or Japan since the Meiji Era?
All best Christian