Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> I think it's best to define imperialism broadly as what is necessary
> to ensure the continued reproduction of capitalism, subjecting all to
> the discipline of the world market (which may _de-industrialize_
> large parts of the world, depending on its systemic needs),
I think this is a good definition but you(we) have to be careful about
bad functional explanations and with such a general definition it can be
used to explain anything. For example:
Why is the suicide rate rising?
-it helps ensure the reproduction of capitalism.
Why does the news media exclude radical/critical viewpoints?
-helps ensure the reproduction of capitalism.
Why do central banks deliberately create unemployment?
-helps ensure the reproduction of capitalism.
And so on. Further, saying some phenomenon x is necessary for the
reproduction of capitalism implies that x will not exist under
socialism. Socialism will not do away with all evil in the world, which
brings us back to the human nature/sociobiology/ev-psych. questions.
instead
> of focusing quantitatively on the relative volumes of foreign
> investments in this or that nation or region on the periphery as Leys
> seems to do.
The nature and quantity of foreign investment is important. Too much
leads to crisis as it did in the '97-'98 Asia Drama and the resultant
social disasters. The whole point of the
GATT, WTO, IMF and GATS is to facilitate greater flows of FDI and
FPI.(as you know).
Sam
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
