>> Ulhas: "I never said anything about 'comprador' capitalist >>class. 'Comprador' is a meaningless category. Which capital doesn't make substantial contribution to indigenous development?">>
> No, I introduced "comprador", which might be an overextended category, but does indeed describe the Chinese merchant class that subordinated itself to foreign investment. They retreated to the margins of Chinese society (like Hong Kong and Macao), eventually transforming themselves into an expatriate class of traders scattered throughout SE Asia.>
> When the West was investing in China in the early 20C., >the 'comprador' traders might have become an indigenous >capitalist class, but the rising social conflict saw them >withdraw >from mainland China. None the less, I argue, this >expatriate Chinese trading class today is an important source of >funds for the mainland today>
IMO the contemporary overseas Chinese capital is foreign capital from the standpoint of Chinese State. It is not patriotism or ethnicity, but profitability that is driving capital into China. If China ceased to be profitable, this capital will be invested elsewhere. IMO terms such as "comprador capital" and "national or patriotic capital" are anachronisms. The contemporary Capital in developing Asian countries is international in nature and orientation.
Lenin says in "Imperialism" that,"The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capital throughout the world."
This is true irrespective of the ethnic background or citizenship status of individuals personifying it.
Ulhas