Doug Henwood wrote
> A question, though: aren't second-tier OECD countries like Australia and
> New Zealand as rich as they are because of their participation in an
> imperial system, of which "globalization" is one manifestation or
> interpretation?
Well, I can't answer for them all but ...
The New Zealand colony was at one time described as "a glorious
country for a working man" ("working" and "man" no slip of the pen
I'd imagine). In other words it was orginally accepted by the British
as a settler colony and only later with refrigeration did it become a
source of cheap food. The function of the settler colony was to
attract the poor and huddled masses - hence it had to pay them enough
to attract them away from Britain. Much of this was actually paid for
out of the proceeds of the colony itself - robbing land from the
(indigenous) Maori, and developing it. But yes, New Zealand did
become rich due to the fact that Britain wanted it to be rich. Which
doesn't mean Britain didn't happily rip us off when it suited.
However we are well past that stage now as I think my earlier
statistics indicate. We may be again (arguably, still) a (neo)colony
but we are benefitting from imperialism only to the extent that
(a) we have most of the trappings of a developed country and can
therefore compete internationally on some high-added-value goods and
on agricultural and forest products on the basis of high efficiency
and thus appropriate a share of the imperial income. Arguably parts
of the economy benefit from the imperial (i.e. WTO) trade
rules, etc.; and
(b) there are perhaps a few trade advantages we have
with Europe that descend from colonial preferences; and
(c) New Zealand is a minor imperial power in the South Pacific.
That we aren't much liked for that in the Pacific is I think true,
but to ascribe a significant part of our wealth to it is not. New
Zealand companies also have $20-$30 billion invested abroad - much
less than inward investment; and
As to (a), our per capital income and competitiveness is now lower
than for example Singapore which began life as a colony of the
exploited sort (though perhaps not a typical one). (I would also
guess that Singaporean investors own significantly more of New Zealand
than New Zealand investors do of Singapore.) An argument that we
are benefitting from imperialism on these grounds thus gets into
murky waters. Our local rulers do think they get a net benefit from
the WTO, but I would contest that - and certainly as far as benefit
to working class people goes - as in my previous posting. Therein
lies the crunch.
(b) is a pretty small part of New Zealand's exports now and is
gradually being absorbed into the systems set up by the WTO
agreements.
So I don't think your suggestion still holds for New Zealand, other
than that trading is participating in the imperial system. For other
countries, such as Canada, perhaps their net international investments
give a different answer. Does the UK still have a large surplus on
invisibles? I think so.
> Can't people be accused of happily playing the imperial game when
> it makes them richer, and complaining when that same system
> threatens that privilege?
Yes naturally, though as always, you do have to distinguish which
"people" you mean. If the "people" are the capitalists who benefit
directly, the answer is a pretty unequivocal yes, given the demise of
national capitalism. If the "people" are the working class (et al)
then there is always a struggle to obtain their share of these
benefits, so "happily" might not be quite the word. It would take a
stupendous and probably pointless feat of international solidarity
to turn away (or rather decline to struggle for) the fruits of the
imperial game.
> Actually, you could say the same about the U.S., couldn't you?
Yes, even more so, since the proceeds of imperialism are direct. But
the same provisos about who you are talking about are important. It
seems to me that part of the "globalisation" debate vis a vis the
U.S. is that its companies used to "bring home the bacon" but are now
are leaving home and treating home just like the colonies.
Bill
