RE: Arms production + Dept III

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

>
> Adam
> ----
>
> At the same time as this massively negative balance of trade,
> capital was being exported : just look at all the British built
> railways around the world.
>
>
> Paul
> ----
> Your statements are flately contradictory.
>
> If Britain had a negative trade balance, then there was a
> net inflow of surplus value into the country. Under those
> conditions it was not a net capital exporter.

Well, of course there was a net inflow of surplus value into
Britain. This is Imperialism we're talking about after all.

However, facts are awkward things. The fact is, there are
British built railways in India, Argentina to name a just
a few. There are no Indian or Argentinian built railways in Britain.
This suggests Britain exported capital to India and Argentina,
and not the other way round.

>
> The idea that Britain was a capital exporter is an unsubstantiated
> myth, ( the mid 1980s excepted).
>
> The great failing of the Leninist interpretation of imperialism
> is that it lacks either a theoretical or empirical foundation in
> a theory of international trade.

Have you actually read "Imperialism: the highest stage of capitalism" ?
It starts with a long analysis of precisely that.

> One can no more hope to understand
> international capital movements without this, than one can hope
> to understand capital accumulation without first understanding
> commodity exchange.
>

With all due respect, it seems that you are taking capitalist
measurements such as the balance of trade as a starting point
rather than any Marxist analysis in order to attack Leninism,
for reasons best known to yourself.

Adam.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------