Hari:
>(i) I do not deny international connections - that is precisely the
>meaning of 'comprador'.
>(ii) As for domestic relatioons, sure these are important. Often the
>comprador elements are linked to landed aristocratic/feudal estates
>etc.; for instance. Naturally they have an 'interest in exploiting'. All
>that is granted and part of the history of the comprador.
The problem in figuring out whether the term 'comprador bourgeoisie' is
relevant is that those Asian tigers and India that Ulhas dote on are
obviously exceptions to the old-style colonial paradigm. But to put it
dialectically, it was absolutely necessary for the current phase of capital
accumulation to loosen the leash on the South Korean bourgeoisie et al. By
allowing local industries to flourish in Asia that supplied cheap consumer
goods to the West in places like Walmart, it became possible to institute
the wage cuts that was so necessary to maximize profits. This relationship
Biel calls 'rentier imperialism'. I will have much more to say on this, but
will conclude with one caveat to those who think that the Asian model can
be exported. The last thing that imperialism would tolerate is the kind of
chaebol protectionism that allowed development in South Korea to be
replicated in Brazil, Nigeria, etc. This was a calculated bid to foster
strong industrial-military Spartan states clustered around China based on
capitalism. For obvious reasons, there is no longer such a need. This would
explain the willingness of the west to see Indonesia and other Asian states
to flounder.
Louis Proyect
The dichotomy between the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie no longer exist as a body politic. Every sector of capital is based on exploitation - the purchase of labor power for an amount of value below that which is paid to the worker, or what is the same the securing of a mass of commodities and their sale for what is below the value paid to the producers in the form of wages.
Yet there remains national sectors of capital. The national capital of Iran - not Iraq, secured - through its political revolution, a certain insularity - in terms of oil, which in turn is construction and financing development, achieved a certain independence from the International capital dominated by the US.
Morphing . . .
Concepts rooted in the United Front and the Popular front from a previous period in the configuration of capital are useless under our current phase in the decay of capital. Yet the existence of a national sector of capital n the Middle East (Asia) in particular, in its historically evolved social structures and political forms - Islam, help to clarify the war footing the USNA has been placed on and its looming aggressions against Iraq.
Morphing . . .
The concept of modern - current, imperial wars has not been published in its recast mode. We are experiencing the prelude to the third imperial war of capital and everyone understands this in their heart and stomach - to one degree or another. It is true that Bush Jr. immediate interest is to prevent the flow of Iraqi oil from collapsing the oil market. Strategically, the goal is to consolidate the US as the dominant sector of the world total social capital expressing the agenda of the speculators by weakening the national sectors of capital in Japan and Europe.
This retrogressive tendency to meet capitals energy needs blocks the full development and emergence of fuel cell technology and a sector of capital is rebelling against the policy of Bush Jr. and company. Little by little a voice is emerging that says, "To hell with oil," the profits are in the new technology. This rebellion is an authentic breach in the body politic of capital that expresses a breach in the social fabric allowing revolutionaries to articulate a vision of a new world of possibilities.
"To hell with oil," does not mean that I support one sector of capital against another or what is the same selling every household an individual fuel cell power pack to service their energy needs. Rather I am looking at the trajectory of infrastructure evolution and the breaches where in we begin the fight for common sense, life and purpose and not just money power.
Lou is of course on the right side of the equation in questioning the relevancy of comprador in today's world. Hari is not wrong to note the morphing of national capital and the comprador bourgeoisie - Sambo Capital (this reference is specific to America) and its increasing fusion with international capital.
In my heart I thought that Lou would like throwing in Sambo capital as a description of a historical process. From what I observed, Lou in his political assertions is very careful about this indigenousness and national thang.
Me - I ain't mad at you.
Melvin P.
