On Social Imperialism (Reply to dms)

["Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The controversial claims made by Bairoch in the citation I gave are that (1)
the net effect of colonialism and neo-colonialism on the colonial powers was
not positive; (2) countries with no colonies or "few[er] economic ties with
the Third World" did better than colonial powers; and (3) in the 19th
century the rich countries did not benefit much from cheap natural resources
-- these countries were "almost totally self-sufficient."

Rakesh responds to claims (1) and (2) this way:

> In  Late Victorian Holocausts Mike Davis presents an argument as to why
> colonialism was an important factor in the industrialization of even
> apparently non imperial countries:

Davis' argument may be right or wrong.  Note that Bairoch's claim (1)
alludes only to colonial powers.  So, if Davis' argument is that "apparantly
non imperial countries" (non colonial powers) did fine without colonies,
then such argument is not a refutation of Bairoch's claim.  And Bairoch's
claim (2) is entirely compatible with what Rakesh says is Davis' argument.

If a nation need not have a colonial empire to benefit unilaterally from the
Third World, what then does it have that allow it the privilege?  If the
specific (non-colonial) mechanism that allows a (non-colonial) rich nation
benefit unilaterally from the Third World is not identified, then we don't
really know whether it is capitalist exploitation or imperialist
exploitation.

For example, suppose a rich country trades "normally" with a poor country.
For a given industry, if the conditions of production in the poor country
are substandard, then labor time spent in them is only partially recognized
in the world market -- i.e., labor time exceeding the international
standards is wasted as far as international value formation is concerned.

On the other hand, the tendency of international market prices to fluctuate
around international production prices (dictated to a large extent by the
conditions of production in the rich countries) allows the rich country to
draw unilaterally value produced in the poor country.

Neither of this is a specifically imperialist mechanism.  The former is the
formation of international market value. The latter is the mechanism of
profit-rate equalization operating at the international level.  In any case,
the rich country doesn't need the poor country to be its colony.  If trade
between the two countries were to cease to dismantle these mechanisms, then
the poor country wouldn't necessarily end up being better off (particularly
the direct producers).

To see the importance of this, consider a natural laboratory: Cuba.  Cuba is
today nobody's colony or neo-colony.  It has severed its neo-colonial
dependency.  Trade with the rich capitalist countries is in the interest of
Cuba as well.  Cuba benefits from this trade.  Now -- does anybody believe
that the trade between rich capitalist countries and Cuba doesn't entail a
unilateral appropriation of value by these rich countries at the expense of
Cuba?  This shows that ending the colonial or neo-colonial dependency
doesn't eliminate these forms of exploitation by the rich capitalist
countries.  The root of this type of exploitation lies in the commercial
character of the relation between unequal parties and in the capitalist
character of the world market.

Rakesh reproduces the portion of Bairoch's citation related to claim (3):

> During this period the developed world exported energy to the Third World
> and was almost totally self-sufficient in raw materials.  So, other times,
> other situations."

Then Rakesh replies:

> The US had enclosed within its own borders its own third world with
> characteristic formally unfree and racialized forms of exploitation. As
> Evelyn Nakano Glenn shows these workers enjoyed neither freedom of contract
> nor citzenship: they were of another world.  19th US was an empire on to
> itself even before one considers formally recognized colonies. So... does
> Barioch consider the seizure by the Northern industrial class of land and
> the labor of tens of millions of super-exploited racialized proletarians in
> the American South and Southwest? If not, the above claim seems
> meaningless.And in the case of India, does Bairoch know of, much less
> refute, the work of Amiya Baghci, Hamza Alavi and Irfan Habib?

However, the claim that the U.S.' South and Southwest were the United
States' "own third world" is strictly unrelated to the issue raised by
Bairoch.  Or does Rakesh claim that the American South and the Southwest of
the United States are underdeveloped or part of the Third World?

_________________________________________________________________



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.