[Marxism] Re: What is a subimperialist?

[<hari.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks again, Renato, for your time.
(1) Re books in SPanish: Which ONE(s) provide the best overview in you ropinion?

For question(2) the dialgoue goes:
HARI:2) The Comintern used the term "a minor partner of imperialism", Renato, 
to depict the 'white' colonial implants in Canada; South Africa; NZ & Oz. Is 
the formulation here similar?
RENATO: No, it is not similar. It is a new concept for a new reality. Brazil 
acts
not only as a minor partner of American, European and Japanese imperialisms,
but also as a mini-imperialist on its own interests.>
COMMENT: My recollection is that this was also the characterisation of the old 
CI views.
Hence Canada was considered an imperialist (not with the qualifier of 'mini'). 
Hence then these 'junior partners' had imperial designs in contradiction with 
those of the higher peck-order imperialists to whom they were beholden. The 
genesis of the Canadian bourgeoisie is an interesting case in point (I would 
submit - bowing to Richard Fidler's superior knowledge). Thus the Canuck 
bourgeoisie twisted in the winds between their own parade - and kow-towing to 
the interests of either Brit or USA. This twistign went on till the NAFTA 
signature in my view. That nailed the end of any real 'independent' aspirations 
of the Canadian bourgeoisie. In my view.

HARI:> 3) Finally, as an old dog who really finds new tricks hard to learn - how
exactly is this terminology different from 'comprador' and 'national' capital?

RENATO: Brazilian subimperialism is not only "comprador"; it is an industrially 
and
financianlly rather established country, which exports goods and capitals, 
especially to its neighbours and to nations in Africa and the Near East.
This subimperialism is not "national", as in it there work mostly multinational 
corporations and national groups closely associated with
multinational corporations.

COMMENT: Development of India capital was similar.
But India's exports etc still did not challenge its dependence as a state 
beholden to the imperialists. First the UK; then the UK; then the USSR and then 
the USA.
I guess I will just have to labour thru' the Spanish texts.
I am not getting what are supposed to be the key hallmarks distinguishing 
'sub-imperial' to the complex and volatile and changing mix of 'comprador' and 
'national capital'.
Cheers!
H


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism