Hari Kumar wrote: > I suggest that the term is still meaningful. [Even despite the > increasingly 'narrow' stage on which national capitalists can play in > today's even more inter-penetrated world]. It describes for instance > the opponents of Chavez in the recent tussles in Venezuela. ie. Those > whose vested interests (you use the term accumulation) reside in > external imperial connections. The original term according to Oxford > dictionary was coined regarding the agents for imperial shipping firms > in China. I think that this still describes a grouping whose primary > economic function is as the funnel of imperialism into various > semi-colonies or neo-colonial states. This is largely different from the > role of political sycophancy that for instance, Mr.Blair - leading > representatives of rival imperialism may indulges in.
I don't know anything about Venezuela. My question was about the concept of comprador capital, if there is one. Similarly we need the concepts of other terms you use, viz. semi-colony, neo-colony etc., if loose talk about x or y nation being a colony/semi-colony/neocolony is to be avoided. Perhaps you could offer a set of definitions which can be applied consistently and rigorously to various social formations. Ulhas
