Re: single-factor theory vs. a complete explanation

[Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1@xxxxxxx>]

Michael Perelman writes:

> Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> >  Jim Devine:
> >  >Instead of such a single-factor explanation, I'd say that Anglo-American
> >  >imperialism was _allied with_ the hacienda- and plantation-owners.
> >
> >  Alliances are only made between equals. The "alliance" between
> >  Anglo-American imperialism and the landed gentry in Latin America was like
> >  the alliance between Richard Nixon and the black bourgeoisie.
> >
> >  Louis Proyect
>  > Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>
> Like a crooked cop on the beat, those who are closest to the exploiter have a
> certain degree of discretion.  They can serve their own purposes, so long as
> it does not create too much inconvenience.  At the same time, those closest to
> the point at which the force is exerted are likely to overemphasize the power
> of those near the bottom of the power structure.
>
> Still, I don't think that the either/or approach gets us too far.

Besides, we shouldn't take the rise of the USA & the stagnation of
Latin America for granted.  The rise of US imperialism itself has to
be explained.  At the dawn of the conquest of the New World, it
wasn't a foregone conclusion that North America would become one day
the preeminent site of industrial capitalism & Latin America, an
economy dependent first upon the UK & then the USA.

Yoshie