[lbo-talk] Re: Re: Nationalism & Internationalism Re: Benny Morris: in Issue 2287

Grant Lee grantlee at iinet.net.au
Wed Jan 28 20:10:03 PST 2004


I said: "Here we get into a definition problem; in development literature, what you have described is generally referred to as a _comprador_ position, rather than a national bourgeois position. A national bourgeoisie, by definition, is generally opposed to (e.g.) the increased competition which comes with neo-liberalism."

Hari said: "In most situations, I believe the data shows that the national bourgeois back off..."and: "Often these nationalists adopt pseudo-socialist colours to get a mass base. but when they are forced to back off by the immense power of the international imperialists who can easily, deny markets etc. - what does that make them? "

Me: Sure, they are often forced into alliance with the compradors by a political fait accompli. This does not equate to the "natural", material position of a national bourgeoisie, dictated by self-interest. (e.g.) In a country with a large and growing population & economy, there is relatively much less need for export-oriented development, because domestic consumption is adequate for the bulk of valorisation. Compradors, by definition, are dependent on international trade (and this is why in small/entrepot states the compradors usually predominate).

(BTW, a clear, countervailing example is Australia --- following federation of six self-governing colonies in 1901, there was what an early PM called the "game of three elevens"; a struggle for supremacy at the new Federal level between the Labor Party, the Protectionists and Free Traders. All of these parties held government prior to 1909. However as the electorate drifted to the left, the Free Traders discoved that they feared socialism more than tariffs, and succumbed to takeover by their brethren on the right. A stringent protectionist regime was then upheld by both left and right until the 1980s.)

Hari: "The power of the international bourgeoisie is even greater now that the 'countervailing' force of a post-Khruschevite USSR imperialism is by & large, gone. As time has gone on, the 'bargaining power' of the national borge has diminished, I would argue. But, I would also argue that for a brief moment it is still there. [depending on the concretes in each country naturally]."

All true, because the political mandate becomes the economic reality, if it lasts long enough, and the balance of numbers tips more and more toward the compradors.

Grant.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list