|
Patrick Bond writes: > I had some long discussions about these problems about 8 weeks ago with > Samir, but didn't find a way to dislodge his support for South-South > alliances no matter how much of a stretch (the current most ridiculous > one is Venezuela-Zimbabwe). I reply: Well, does it not seem that one key and underscrutinized issue is determining what distinguishes a decadent Bandung I regime from a protean Bandung II one? And hence figuring out the criteria separating rotten Bandung I trade/ investment/diplomacy/etc. alliances from promising Bandung II ones? Perhaps this is unfair, but despite my deep respect for Amin's work too often it feels as though his analysis is long on acclamation (very impressive acclamation indeed!) and short on analysis. I guess he is first and foremost a theoretician. Patrick Bond writes: >Much else of that interview is fantastic, especially the orientation to explaining >global capitalist crisis not momentary financial bubble burst. I reply: Well of course Dr. Overaccumulation himself would lend his endorsement! But isn't that just Marxism 101? It gets you through the door but not out the other end of the passageway. What I find to be a more deft theoretical move is Amin's attempt -- the analysis is not terribly well-developed -- to intermingle analysis of the over- accumulation of capital, the concentration of capital, and imperialism. If I'm not mistaken a major portion of a recent big book of his revolved around the theme of how the big powers are engaged in a fraternal competition to win superprofits in the leading sectors of global capitalism and jointly committed to keeping the old machinery of uneven development chugging along. I suppose upon reconsideration it seems to be a rather abstruse updating but not a fundamental reconstruction of hoary dependencia theories, the added features being a convinction that global capitalism is ever more overripe (in part because of previously unappreciated ecological crises) and a conviction that socialism is one country is ever more illusory. Maybe Amin hasn't made any dramatic new moves since 1991, which is not to say that his perspective lacks potency for it. Regarding Amin and China, an irony just occurred to me. Perhaps it is the very failure of the CCP to achieve one self-proclaimed goal -- that is, to have the opening up and market reform policies yield a crop of PRC-based, high value-adding Global Fortune 500 firms -- that accounts for Amin's refusal to admit the PRC to the collective imperialists' club. I would develop this point further were my homemade spaghetti sauce not boiling over, but I think you can grok the irony here... It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster. Get your account now. |
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
- [Pen-l] How Bernard Madoff Made Off with My Money, Louis Proyect Fri 26 Dec 2008, 13:24 GMT
- [Pen-l] Samir Amin: There is no alternative to socialism, Louis Proyect Fri 26 Dec 2008, 13:21 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [Pen-l] Samir Amin: There is no alternative to socialism, John Gulick Fri 26 Dec 2008, 14:57 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] Samir Amin: There is no alternative to socialism, Patrick Bond Fri 26 Dec 2008, 17:05 GMT
- [Pen-l] Samir Amin: There is no alternative to socialism, John Gulick Fri 26 Dec 2008, 21:48 GMT
- [Pen-l] Samir Amin: There is no alternative to socialism (addendum), John Gulick Fri 26 Dec 2008, 22:13 GMT
- [Pen-l] global keynesianism light, Gernot Koehler Fri 26 Dec 2008, 04:21 GMT
- Re: [Pen-l] global keynesianism light, Jim Devine Fri 26 Dec 2008, 16:10 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- [Pen-l] global keynesianism light, Charles Brown Fri 26 Dec 2008, 19:20 GMT