[lbo-talk] Superprofits

[Joseph Wanzala]

Perhaps part of the answer to this riddle lies in looking at the extent to 
which the locus of 'imperial power' per se, has been de-territorialized or 
has shifted from the center-periphery model (per Cardoso/Gunder-Frank's 
dependency theory) to a model under which corporate profits no longer have a 
nationalist-imperial identity (British, Dutch, American, German, French) but 
a model where the share of the spoils have been truly internationalized 
among an elite group that transcend national boundaries. The fortunes 
'global corporations' of old, the British East Africa Company, the British 
India Company etc. were tied to the national and hemispheric interests of 
the 'the West' - to what extent is this still true?.... Also, perhaps 
imperialism under late capitalism does not contribute to Western/Northern 
wealth in the same way today because the governments of the West, (the 
state) has a different relationship with their polities than they did during 
the imperial age due to immigration and other post-colonial changes in 
national identity, especially in Europe. Just some thoughts.....

Joe W.


>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Superprofits
>Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 17:47:45 -0500
>
>Like I've said before, the past contribution of imperialism seems 
>completely uncontroversial to me. What I'd like to know is how imperialism 
>contributes to Northern prosperity today, and this quote doesn't really 
>answer that. And Indian growth rates have recently been pretty strong. 
>Also, a lot of American IT workers might argue that FDI is contributing to 
>Indian growth at the expense of U.S. growth.
>
>China's path over the last 20 years has been mostly capitalist, and it has 
>generated one of the most stunning growth performances in history. Violent, 
>unequal, and ecologically destructive, but quite a success on its own 
>terms. China has been able to do this in part because it's a very big 
>country in a very strong bargaining position to set its own economic 
>policy. On the face of it, India should be similarly situated. Why hasn't 
>it performed similarly?
>
>Doug
>
>John Mage wrote:
>
>>  >> uvj at vsnl.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  India's share in the world trade less than 1%.(It's probably 0.50%
>>>>  of the world trade) How does India contribute significantly to "the
>>>>   First world's" prosperity? How does "the First World" contributes
>>>>  significantly to India's poverty?
>>>
>>>  Excellent questions. I'd really like to hear some good answers from
>>>  the partisans of the view that it does, but they've been scarce so
>>>  far.
>>>
>>>  Doug
>>
>>As it happens, an Indian friend who is a professor of economics has been
>>staying by me and is leaving for JFK to return to Delhi in the next  few
>>minutes. While waiting in my apartment for the car I mentioned this
>>interchange to him. He laughed, and said "what part of India's poverty
>>has NOT been 'significantly contributed' by imperialism ?" - and I asked
>>him to set out the ABCs. What follows is his, but his condition is that
>>this is a one-off and not an ongoing conversation since he has quite a
>>bit to do on his return. The assumption of course, which I know at least
>>that Doug shares, is that it is foolish to say that there was once
>>history, but now there isn't any.
>>
>>john mage
>>
>>"While it is true that India's _merchandise_ exports to world
>>_merchandise_ exports is around 0.7%, in order to search for an answer
>>to the question posed, we suggest an approach that views the _present_
>>as history. India's international political-economic relations can be
>>characterised by at least 5 stages. The colonial period (1757-1947),
>>comprising the mercantile period (1757-1810), the competitive industrial
>>phase (1810-1870s), and the monopoly phase (1870s - 1913; 1919-1939 and
>>the two war periods) and the post-independence  period in two phases,
>>1947-1991, and 1991 to the present. The mercantile period was of
>>colonial plunder, the competitive industrial phase was of
>>deindustrialisation, the monopoly phase was of imperialism, and the
>>post-independence phase of neo-imperialism, together "contributing
>>significantly" to the structures of underdevelopment and poverty in
>>India today. The present (1991-2003) is a period wherein FDI [Foreign
>>Direct Investment] and FPI [Foreign Portfolio Investment], especially
>>the latter, have constrained macroeconomic policy including fiscal policy
>>to weaken industrial growth rates since 1996-1997. For India the path of
>>independent capitalist development that enabled Japan's ruling classes
>>to end poverty in that country, let alone any more sophisticated version
>>of the paths taken by the Soviet Union or China that reduced poverty in
>>those countries, are effectively blocked today by "the First World".
>>
>>
>>
>>___________________________________
>>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

_________________________________________________________________
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95.  
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)