[PEN-L:4623] Re: PEN-L digest 671

["Anthony D'Costa" <dcosta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Carl:  I am serious.  We tend to gloss over the costs associated with
capitalism in the early industrializing nations.  So the point is if you
want material improvements you have to have growth, investment, and
production.  Imperialism can do part of the job.  Repressive governments
may or may not be part of the equation.  This is the old (now
dead) dependency and its off-shoots argument (bureaucratic
authoritarianism).  Capitalism from non-capitalist social relations is
quite repressive, even of the bourgeois democratic variety found in the
west.  Of course what is repression itself is a debateable issue.  If you
go by the liberal-pluralist standards then most of the world is
repressive, including countries like Japan.  The question is do the
people living in those societies view as being repressed.

The second point is that if capitalism is repressive or for that matter
if the west has paid a price then all well meaning people should avoid
capitalism for the rest of the world.  But what is the alternative?  The
problem is too little production (and distribution) in the LDCs and not
too much as in the advanced capitalist economies.  Foreign capital and
technology can help under certain conditions.  That is what I mean by
imperialism.  Besides, how do you keep foreign capital out?  We can't
wish it away.  So paraphrasing old Bertolt we can't preach to the hungry
with our belly full.

With respect to imperialism (and dependency perspective) I quote an
Economic and Political Weekly editorial (a respected periodical from
Bombay (now Mumbai), India, "There could be no greater
slur inflicted on our capabilities: we are nincompoops, we are unable to
ensure a local supply of exploiters, the process of exploitation has to
be initiated elsewhere....This in itself is neocolonialism of a sort."

My final point: Selden may not agree with your imputing that
capitalism is a precondition for future socialism.  But I certainly would
say that without capitalism you cannot create the proletariat and
therfore social movements.  The Korean case is illustrative on this
score.  Repression, industrialization, increased material standards and
might I add reasonably good distribution, and now new social movements.

Cheers, Anthony D'Costa

On Wed, 5 Apr 1995, Carl H.A. Dassbach wrote:

>  It is
> >capitalist development in a marxist sense that is taking place in Asia
> >and imperialism (export of capital) is significantly influencing it.
>
> As, I might add, Marx predicted it would.  In fact, Marx  was quite clear on
> the `progressive' role of imperialism - capitalism reshaping the world in
> its own image - in the Manifesto, its just that Marx's gloss on imperialism
> was overshadowed by Lenin's.  Rostow, of course, didn't forget Marx.
>
>   So
> >those who believe in (not celebrate) capitalist development for future
> >social change ought to reconsider small doses of imperialism (foreign
> >direct investment) and marketization.
> >
>
> Is this a joke or are you serious? "Small does of imperialism and
> marketization" - foreign capital in conjunction with repressive governments
> "putting the screws" to a work force in order to extract surplus profits for
> capital and rents for politicos..  Although material conditions may improve
> (and it seems that we can only measure development in terms of material
> indicators) in these corcumstances this is entirely an UNINTENDED
> consequence of the private pursuit of profit which, I might add, ultimately
> undermines the pursuit of profit by raising wage costs.
>
> .
>
> .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Carl H.A. Dassbach                                   E-mail:   DASSBACH@xxxxxxx
> Dept. of Social Sciences                            Phone:   (906)487-2115
> Michigan Technological University              Fax:       (906)487-2468
> Houghton,  MI   49931    USA
>
>