Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Of course if you zoom into the state of the country you will find retardation of development, but overall the development of capitalism is greatly accelerated:[/b]
Oh, the "overall development of capitalism is greatly accelerated"; how silly of me not to notice. Yet I really don't think you could adequately measure such development through growth figures alone. For instance, according to the CIA factbook, which you linked, the economy of Nigeria has grown by 6.2% [link (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ni.html)]. However, does that mean that Nigerian capitalism, in general, is developing? Or just that Chevron and friends are now producing more?
Myself, I fail to see how "overall capitalism" can be developing when basic things, like the building of modern cities, remain almost non-existent. And that's the thing about Imperialism, it is perfectly capable of increasing the output of an area, but not, it seems, of doing that in a rounded way....like was the case during early capitalism.
So whilst growth in the Niger Delta may well be booming, that matters little if the growth itself is very limited, as it is, and if said growth fails to expand beyond its narrow horizons. That is, there's more to this than just an increase in commodity production.
Furthermore, from Marx's perspective, capitalist growth was really only important in one way....the growth of a modern proletariat. And, in places like Nigeria, where there is growth, this growth doesn't always mean that a modern proletariat is a given. Not least because the wage-labourers used in many Imperialist businesses don't come from the country where the production takes place....essentially, they're "imported" as well.
So, what type of growth is it that limits itself to a few sectors and fails to expand the size of the proletariat if not retarded growth? I mean, early capitalist growth created vast armies of wage-labourers, yet Imperialist growth doesn't; surely there's a difference? One which, likely, means that the unlimited export of capital ain't a good thing. Unless you wish to contend that the IMF is "historically progressive"? :blink:
Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Are you saying that without the exporting of foreign capital into China, capitalism would have developed by the same extent?[/b]
Dunno myself. However, for sure, I think we can say that if the export of capital into China had been unlimited and unregulated, then the growth of the Chinese economy, in the manner in which it has grown, would not have happened. After all, in order for a well rounded economy to develop, then there needs to be a degree of Protectionism....the type of protectionism that the Imperialist Nations simply don't allow.
Kicking Away the Ladder: How the Economic and Intellectual Histories of Capitalism Have Been Re-Written to Justify Neo-Liberal Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang (http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm).
Originally posted by Janus
Damn! I was gonna comment on that very same passage. :P
" :P " indeed! <_<
Originally posted by kurt
....but perhaps there isn't much capital being exported to said continent.
As far as I know, there's quite a bit of capital being imported into Africa. At least in certain regions.
Originally posted by ComradeOm
Compared to the conditions of Marx's early works huge reforms had already taken place.
Like what? :huh:
Nationalised Healthcare, the 8 hour work day, Pensions, decent accommodation, the dole, sick pay and so on, all came after Lenin's expiry date. So, in the 30 year period after Marx died and before Lenin died, what are the major reforms that came into existence?
I mean, when you talk about "the appeal of the social democrats to the proletariat", you seem to forget that in many places, including Britain, social-democracy was in its infancy when Lenin died. Only really in Germany and France could Lenin have witnessed social-democracy in action....and even in these places, unless I'm mistaken, the major reforms still happened after Lenin's death.
[email protected]
What I think is more accurate here is that Lenin did not appreciate the scale by which imperialism could transform capitalist societies.
Horseshit. Almost a century of solid class struggle has done more to change the face of modern capitalism than Imperialism has. After all, workers have won most of the benefits we have, the bourgeois hasn't simply "granted" them.
I mean, really, the question I asked you in the first thread on this was important; the question being: is this "privilege" the result of "capitalist bribery" or the gains made by class struggle? There's two answers to that question....and each of the answers has a whole set of practical positions attached. Practical positions that, essentially, define whether one thinks that the revolutionary option is available.
ComradeOm
The disclaimer is that today's imperialism involves investing in labour....
They may "invest in labour", but they still do that in a significantly different way. In modern capitalist countries, that is the Imperialist Nations, "investing in labour" involves educating potential labourers, making sure they don't die of hunger and so on. Sure, many of these things were won by the working class, but the nature of modern capitalism means that the bourgeois is not willing to undo all of these things....even though they probably could, at this point in time.
In countries dominated by Imperialism, "investing in labour" simply means employing people to work long hours for shit pay. Skilled labour is usually imported....and, therefore, the "investment in labour" is not of the same nature.
Whether this will prove to be an important difference, remains unclear. Myself, I think an educated, skilled and confident working class will be crucial if the working class is to effectively rule society. At the very least, these qualities will make it less likely that the working class will allow One Man Management and "Specialists" to be thrust upon them.