Finance Capital/FDI/Imperialism

[bricolage]

Ok so I'm struggling with this a bit. I'm trying to relate empirical data to the Marxist theories of imperialism but think I missing something big. In terms of finance capital and FDI the biggest exporters AND importers are major industrialised countries in the Global North. Even when you take FDI or capital inflows as a percentage of GDP or something like that it is still negligible in the South. So if imperialism works by capital flowing to the less developed world (Lenin; Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance) why does it not do that when you look at the data?
I'm really stumped here but feel that I've just missed something really basic either in terms of the theory or the data. Any help would be much appreciated.

[bricolage]

Oh also I've read a book by James Ferguson where he talks about capital jumping not flowing and where is misses large areas before settling in enclosed mineral rich areas of the less developed South. This much I get and I also see how accumulation by dispossession functions however beyond this I'm lost and can't seem to rectify the Leninist conception of imperialism.

[cyu]

I can't say I've read much (or any) of either Lenin or Ferguson, but the important thing to remember when you say "capital" is that it's just "vapor wealth" - people think it's worth something only when others think it's worth something. The "value" of mediums of exchange is entirely in their social aspect, not in anything intrinsic about that capital.

So when "capital flows into poor nations", not much is really going in - however, the real purpose is that they use that "capital" to extract the real wealth of the poor nation, ie. the mineral goods, raw materials, cheap labor, etc.

So why would poor nations even bother with wanting "capital"? Well, it's not really the paper rectangles coming in that they want, they just want to exchange those paper rectangles for other real wealth that they can't get inside their own nation - like equipment and technology.

They only become beholden to the global financial institutions because "There Is No Alternative" - that is, they don't have their own financial institutions and have to resort to using the exist ones. However, when you think about it, there's no real reason any poor nation needs the paper bills from any existing financial institution - if they want machinery or technology, they can deal directly with the producers providing those things, and cut out the middle-man (or alternatively, create their own "middle-man" organization with the countries they are partnering with).

[S.Artesian]

Barabbas,

I think you're struggling because... well, because Lenin's wrong. The data does not support what he claims for imperialism in his book: Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.

[S.Artesian]

FWIW, here's my take on Lenin's analysis:

http://thewolfatthedoor.blogspot.com/search?q=Lenin

[vyborg]

it makes no sense to discuss data country by country because world economy is dominated by multinational firms. this kind of corporates are active everywhere.

As for the FDI: the west big multinationals export capital but they import profits...many times you can follow the commodities but not the profits

the data are not always useful in that

[S.Artesian]

If it's not useful, then it wasn't useful for Lenin. Lenin makes certain claims, and those who have followed those claims have used equally useful/useless data to support the claims-- that there are super-profits, super rates-of-exploitation that have allowed capital to survive in its dotage by, at least partially, a raw transfer of wealth [how that wealth is produced of course drops out of their analysis]; "looting" of the "3rd world," a "superior" "productivity" of labor, or capital, or both in certain emerging and emerged economies [Asian tigers, Brazil, China, etc.].

The data available does not back up these claims.

And you can follow the profits, to some extent. One big thing that gives the US data a bit of transparency and opaqueness at the same time is the fact, that profits of US corporations made in other countries are not taxable by the US until repatriated.

Revenues are reported, and profits for enterprises in these countries are reported. However cash holdings overseas are not, so it gets difficult to distinguish operating profits from non-operating sources of revenue and profit.

But certainly, we have access to just as much, and much more data, than Lenin had access to when he wrote Imperialism.