Re: [PEN-L:6794] Re: una preguntita

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

I think so (refers to your question at the end).  Manuel Castells' take on
the global-informational economy is that it incorporates and it excludes.
His effort in showing how it excludes (Africa, inner cities, child labor)
should not be interpreted as calling for inclusion under exploitative
relations.  That could very well be but systemic exclusion also offers
little hope (a consequence of also several local/institutional factors).
While I did not see Castells' with a Robinsonian lens until now, I do
think there is merit in Robinson's position.  Economic malaise is far too
strong in developing countries, the least we can do is include people but
preferably on national/regional lines (even if that means deepening
capitalist relations).


Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor
Comparative International Development
University of Washington
1900 Commerce Street
Tacoma, WA 98402, USA

Phone: (253) 692-4462
Fax :  (253) 692-5612

On Fri, 14 May 1999, Rob Schaap wrote:

> Doug writes:
>
> >Didn't Joan Robinson say that the only thing worse than being exploited
> >under capitalism is not being exploited?
>
> Your mate Manuel Castells seems to say this, too.  Without having much to
> say for or against the Marxian argument for the category of  exploitation,
> he merely pronounces it a notion long past, and concludes the modern tragedy
> is that of exclusion.  In other words, he's given up on that front (and the
> formal argument that supports it), and seeks to dig in along a front way
> behind where we could and should be.  In a very 'third way' spirit, he seems
> to be arguing that its the progressive's task to help bring those currently
> not exploited by capital relations into the sphere of capital.
>
> Premise: those societies not organised by the exchange relation are
> currently the worst-off.  Conclusion: the only thing worse than being
> exploited is not being exploited.  Interpretation: we should all join hands
> to 'unite' the globe under the benificence of capital.
>
> Have I got him wrong?
>
> Cheers,
> Rob.
>
>