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
