Ben Day: > I'm not quite sure what the point here is
I meant to supplement his observations by saying that not only the developing world gets less FDI than the developed world, even within the developing Asia, "Leninist" regimes get the bulk of FDI. Non "Leninist" developing nations get very little FDI. Imperialism has made important contribution to the economic development of China through trade (e.g. the access to the US market), FDI etc. Official reports from China have suggested that the integration of China in the world market contributes about 2% to the annual economic growth of China. > I brang this up in the context of Marxist imperialist theory just because > it complicates the notion that developing countries necessarily provide a > rich outlet for surplus capital, or constitute a logical target for > profit-seeking. The logic behind the export of capital is said to be the need to restore the profitability of the capital the "Core" so-called, by using super profits from the so-called colonies and semi-colonies. (China and Vietnam are the most important colonies/semi-colonies of Imperialism in Asia, if this logic is correct.) This has not been demonstrated, as far as know. The data on profitabilty in the OECD nations seem to suggest that the profitability in the OECD nations had gone up between 1985 and 2000. > FDI figures indicate the overseas profit-seekers look primarily to advanced > capitalist countries. I think the real problem here is that "seeking > profit" is not a terribly useful descriptive or analytical term for > understanding why corporations or individuals invest, or invest abroad - > nor is it useful for understanding /how/ they will invest. Yes, I agree. I am not sure there is a coherent Marxist theory of Imperialism. Ulhas
