[lbo-talk] RE HOW THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT IS BLOWING IT:

[andie nachgeborenen]

I am not an expert in international economics, but
there is a logical point to be made here. Even if
exploitation of the third world benefits the first
world in various ways, and that explains why the third
world is exploited, at least in part, it does not
follow that the first world is dependent on that
exploitation. By this I mean, that the first world
would not be able to continue at more or less the
present level of profitability, gowrth, and well-being
without that exploitation. Of course that might be
true, but this nots hwon by the mere fact of unequal
exchange and unfair advantage, or even capital
transfersa nd the like. Perhaps without the benefis of
such exploitation, the first would would have to find
other resources that it might use to maintain its
well-being. If such resources existed and could be
tapped, then the exploitation of the the thirdworld
would not bre necessary for the prosperity of the
first world. 

One might use the following example for ana nalogy"
workers under capitalsim are exploited even if they
are not dominated by the rea; division of labor at
work, subject to scientific management and the like.
Domination at work is certainly functioanl for
capitalism because it enhances exploitation. But it is
not logically necessary for capitalism, which can pump
profits out of workers without it -- may not as well,
but enough to reproduce. Likewise the domination of
the third world is functional for capitalism and
imperialism in the first world, but may not be
neceassry for its reproduction or even its flourishing
the first world.

Doug, correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding
is that almost all capitalist foreign investment is in
other advanced capitalist countries, and not in the
third world. Is that so?

jks

--- Michael Dawson -PSU <mdawson at pdx.edu> wrote:
> Doug asks: "how important are [Third World
> dependencies] to profit-making in
> general?"
> 
> I think the answer is: much greater than appears in
> the economic numbers,
> which, judged from the vantage point of Peru,
> Malaysia, Ghana, etc, are
> quite large anyhow.
> 
> Personally, I am convinced that the biggest
> contribution of undemocratic and
> inegalitarian maldevelopment (i.e., U.S. imposed
> normalcy) in the Third
> World is the suppression of "the threat of a good
> example."  If the Third
> World were allowed, as Luke Weiger seems to think it
> is, to produce robust
> social democracies, how long would G7 (Russia
> doesn't count) privileges and
> advantages last?
> 
> I also think this interpretation, which Chomsky
> advocates, is the only one
> that comports with the actual history of what's
> happened, and what's
> continuing to happen.  "Despots 'r' U.S."  Our
> corporations' profits depend
> deeply on the removal of Mossadegh, Ho Chi Minh,
> Sandinistas, etc., from
> power.
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/