expanding markets

[R_P_A_S]

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

colonization, free trade and in other words cheap labour correct? as we still see today!?

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood.

Is he basically saying that by exploiting so many people it has made what they do seem fancy? as in correct and progressive? which is why even those countries feel as they should take part in it and over consume and allowing their "national ground" to be exploited by foreigners its like they're getting ripped off????


All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.

what is the "life and death" question? and can someone give an example in the present day.
what did marx mean with the difference of indigenous and remote material zones??


In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production.

I think i get half of this statement... he mentions local, national and self sufficiency.. is he opposing trading with other places? As he feels it creates "new, unnecessary wants?"
can some one elaborate this?



The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

can someone help me with this one?

[rouchambeau]

colonization, free trade and in other words cheap labour correct? as we still see today!?

Pretty much. It states that the bourgeoisie is always looking to sell more products to more people and subject more and more people to wage labor.

Is he basically saying that by exploiting so many people it has made what they do seem fancy? as in correct and progressive? which is why even those countries feel as they should take part in it and over consume and allowing their "national ground" to be exploited by foreigners its like they're getting ripped off????

No. What Marx is say isn't much different than the previous quote. He is basically talking about how things we Americans produce are sold to all parts of the world. Conversely, he is talking about how we buy things from other countries (China, Mexico, etc).

what is the "life and death" question? and can someone give an example in the present day.
what did marx mean with the difference of indigenous and remote material zones??

By "life and death" Marx means that nations either develop industries or else they are crushed by stronger nations. Pretty much all of the "third world" can be thought of in this way. By indigenous and remote Marx is simply talking about raw materials that are very close and far away, respectively.

I think i get half of this statement... he mentions local, national and self sufficiency.. is he opposing trading with other places? As he feels it creates "new, unnecessary wants?"
can some one elaborate this?

Marx isn't talking about anything in the normative sense. All he is saying is that "this is the way things are". Here, he states that people want to have things that are not normally found around them. Therefore, material needs and wants must be satisfied by international trade.

I'm not sure how much I understand the last quote either. From what I can tell, Marx is saying that, due to trade, people are much more aware of each other.

NOTE: one thing to keep in mind about a lot of Marx's writings is that he isn't saying that things should be a certain way, but that things are a certain way. This is especially true for the quotes you posted.

[Hit The North]

NOTE: one thing to keep in mind about a lot of Marx's writings is that he isn't saying that things should be a certain way, but that things are a certain way. This is especially true for the quotes you posted.

There's also a sense in which he's extolling the progressive potential of the expanding forces of production which industrial capital summons up. Marx is dazzled by the awesome powers unleashed.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:28 pm
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

colonization, free trade and in other words cheap labour correct? as we still see today!?
Yeah. Basically this whole section is about the same thing, as Rochambeau has pointed out. Under feudalism, most of what a country produced, it also consumed. Heck, most of what a village produced, it also consumed.

Capitalism has made the whole world economy an interconnected whole. This is part of its progressive work.

[slybackstabber]

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country.

It's what we refer to as the "coca-colonisation" of the world, though of course it doesn't just refer to US goods and brand names but also Japanese and European. To the extent that culture is determined by material goods, it has become more homogeneous the world over -- be it Beijing, Mumbai, London, New York, or Sao Paolo (at least for the upper and middle classes, while the poverty and misery of the proletariat has also taken on a more homogeneous character). Thus the acquisition of automobiles and refrigerators, and the consumption of burgers and cokes presupposes a commonality in endeavor and outlook -- an outlook that sees the world in terms of the production and consumption of standardised commodities, of disposability, of immediate sensory gratification, and of profit and loss. This is the brave new world the neo-liberal Washington Consensus has been pushing us towards, but as Marx presciently observed, it reflects a deep and sustained impulse in capitalist dynamics (falling profits impel expansion into foreign markets).

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the Anarchist description of the global economy (and the phenomenon of globalisation) is highly effective - 'A state in which production and exchange relations are global in their character and dimensions.' Capitalism is a system based on the accumulation of Capital, and this results in the spread of a system based on exchange production across the globe so that all possible markets can be taken advantage of. This same impetus results in the marked coincidence of political and economy interests, which is manifested in Imperialism (described by Lenin as the highest stage of Capitalism). In addition, its important to note that Capitalism has resulted in the spread of market structures and relationships to all aspects of life, including culture and romance.


The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

Globalisation does not just exist in the movement of commodities and Capital, but there also exists a cultural and social globalisation whereby interaction between cultural groups occurs and cultural trends and symbols operate across the entire world. Corporate Branding is the most obvious example - The Coca Cola logo is recognizable across the entire world independent of language. It could be argued however, that the combination of government and finance Capital to maintain and fulfill economic interests through military conquest (a characteristic of Imperialism, the ultimate outcome of Capitalism's globalising trend) requires a sense of national pride to provide ideological justification - which would be a counter-trend to what marx described above.

Fascinating quotes though.

[Hit The North]

Bob:


I think the Anarchist description of the global economy (and the phenomenon of globalisation) is highly effective - 'A state in which production and exchange relations are global in their character and dimensions.'

In what sense is that an Anarchist description?

[BobKKKindle$]

I did not mean Anarchist in the sense that the definition was a representation of Anarchist ideology and incompatible with Marxist - I said an anarchist definition because it was a quote from Baukinin.

[Hit The North]

Ok. Just wondered if you (or Bakunin) were placing any special emphasis on the word 'state'.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think in this context 'state' does not refer to the set of structured institutions which Anarchists aim to destroy during the revolution, but rather 'state' as in the nature of an entity or, in this case, an economic system and stage in the development of a mode of production.