[Marxism] Amin and Import Substitution

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

I am presently trying to get my head round Samir Amin's critique of import
substiution stategies for third world (sic) States.

As I see it, before national independence, the ?comprador bourgeoisie? (that
is, the domestic class facilitating the exploitation of the colonial and
semi-colonial proletariat and rural workers for foreign monopoly
capitalists) was forced to export only primary products (raw materials and
food) for extremely cheap prices in order to sustain its own consumption of
luxury items. It could not develop its own competitive industry within the
confines of its peripheral relationship to global capitalism. The national
liberation struggles beginning around the early twentieth century in Mexico
and ranging as far afield as Egypt was a bid by the national comprador
bourgeoisies to alter their position in the international global economy to
favour domestic industrialisation and the growth of domestic markets. In
many cases, as is well known, the national liberation struggles led by a
largely comprador bourgeoisie failed to make decisive breaks with
imperialism (the Wafd in Egypt, the followers of Collins in Ireland, the PRI
in Mexico, are notable examples) and surrendered to a subordinate semi or
neo-colonial position vís a vís their foreign monopolistic masters. In many
cases, (in 1920s Ireland and Egypt for example) even nominal political
independence was only partially forthcoming.

In fact, this was also the case economically. The strategy of
import-substitution adopted by many formerly colonial nationalist capitalist
(thought not socialist) regimes was, according to Amin, only partially
successful (although much more successful than later fully neo-colonial
regimes). The reason for this is that in trying to industrialise by
producing ?durable goods? for export to developed central capitalist
countries which, having already industrialised at a far earlier stage, can
afford to produce these goods themselves at a far lesser cost than can a
peripheral ?independent? capitalism, national peripheral capitalists
neglected to develop mass consumption centred around the accumulation of
suplus value in the agricultural economy. In short, the success of import
substitution strategy was and is undermined by the dependence of local
capitalism?s capacity to industrialise on the import of durable capital
goods from foreign monopoly capitalists.

Am I right that this is the gist of Amin's critique?

Any critical comments are very welcome.

_________________________________________________________________
Want to block unwanted pop-ups? Download the free MSN Toolbar now!
http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism