Re: core vs. periphery
Devine, James: Ulhas writes:There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World. Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domination and subordination. In addition, some countries are more peripheral than others. Some questions: 1. How does one know this without having studied in depth each social formation in the periphery so-called? 2. Does the ruling class always rule through domination? At least Gramsci did not think so. 3. Cuba is subjected to trade embargo by the US,but not by the EU. China doesn't face a trade embargo, but enjoys huge trade surplus with the US. Surely, the so-called Centre has a flexible set of economic policies? Everyone knows that the US balance of payment deficit an engine of growth on the Asia-Pacific region and China is biggest beneficiary there. What domination/subordination model is involved here? Ulhas
Re: Re: core vs. periphery
Ulhas: 1. How does one know this without having studied in depth each social formation in the periphery so-called? Good point. That is why read over 2000 pages on Argentina in order to prepare a series of posts. In general, there is far too much blather on the internet about such questions, even from academics who supposedly are trained in scholarly rigor. 2. Does the ruling class always rule through domination? At least Gramsci did not think so. I believe he was talking about classes within a given country. When it comes to colonialism (or neocolonialism), naked domination is more often the norm. 3. Cuba is subjected to trade embargo by the US,but not by the EU. China doesn't face a trade embargo, but enjoys huge trade surplus with the US. Surely, the so-called Centre has a flexible set of economic policies? The issue is not embargos, but class relationships. Even without an embargo, coffee producing nations are being systematically plundered by imperialism which takes advantage of the tendency of commodity prices to fall under the world capitalist system. As the WSJ article pointed out, times are harded today in Nicaragua because of this than they were during the contra war. Everyone knows that the US balance of payment deficit an engine of growth on the Asia-Pacific region and China is biggest beneficiary there. What domination/subordination model is involved here? The domination/subordination model kicked in when Nixon visited China. Essentially the country made a decision that economic growth would come from the capitalist sector. I think that a Cuban type alternative was possible, but the Chinese CP was too badly corroded by that point. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: core vs. periphery
Everyone knows that the US balance of payment deficit an engine of growth on the Asia-Pacific region and China is biggest beneficiary there. What domination/subordination model is involved here? Ulhas - US trade balance deficit means that the USA pays only 75% of its importations. The counterpart of the 25% gap is an obliged investment, that is a transfer of capital, from the creditors, into the economy of the USA. A quantum of labor which is not paid. Such is the domination/subordination model. RK
RE: Re: core vs. periphery
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27729] Re: core vs. periphery Ulhas writes:There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World. I wrote: Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domination and subordination. In addition, some countries are more peripheral than others. Ulhas has Some questions: 1. How does one know this without having studied in depth each social formation in the periphery so-called? a lot of people have studied a lot of countries, along with the relationships between countries. In any event, our knowledge of _anything_ -- including the periphery -- consists, like all knowledge, of working hypotheses, which may be replaced or modified in the future. 2. Does the ruling class always rule through domination? At least Gramsci did not think so. In my view, forceful domination and non-forceful legitimation both play a role, often complementary. No society can be ruled totally by force, while no exploitative society can be ruled totally via legitimation. 3. Cuba is subjected to trade embargo by the US,but not by the EU. China doesn't face a trade embargo, but enjoys huge trade surplus with the US. Surely, the so-called Centre has a flexible set of economic policies? The center is not some sort of unified policy-making organization (though sometimes the G-7 and similar organizations try to make policy). (The US government, the leader of the center, often faces conflicting political forces, so we see the kind of conflict you mention.) Rather, the center represents the more powerful and exploitative location in a world-wide social structure of imperialism. Everyone knows that the US balance of payment deficit an engine of growth on the Asia-Pacific region and China is biggest beneficiary there. What domination/subordination model is involved here? Countries can sometimes take advantage of the center/periphery structure, especially if they have some autonomy from the capitalist world system. South Korea, for example, was able to rise from being peripheral to being semi-peripheral (perhaps temporarily) by imitating and modifying Japan's earlier method of pursuing a strategy of state intervention to promote exports. Luckily for it, the Cold War meant that the US was willing to accept its alternative strategy, while actually helping it along (through aid, spending on the peninsula, and, during the Vietnam war, high demand). China is currently imitating and modifying that strategy. The country's political-economic power (partly inherited from its communist period) allows it some autonomy here, and thus the ability to profit from the system. But the workers there seem to be getting rock-bottom wages, so they're not getting much out of the system. I should mention that I am far from being a hard-core Wallersteinian (especially since I don't read his stuff very often). In some ways, the core/periphery distinction is useful, while in some ways it's not: the model doesn't seem to allow for the fact that low wages in China encourage low wages all around (as part of the world-wide race (or creep) to the bottom). Jim
Re: RE: Re: core vs. periphery
Devine, James wrote: I should mention that I am far from being a hard-core Wallersteinian (especially since I don't read his stuff very often). In some ways, the core/periphery distinction is useful, while in some ways it's not: the model doesn't seem to allow for the fact that low wages in China encourage low wages all around (as part of the world-wide race (or creep) to the bottom). I think this relationship is partly obscurred when anti-imperialist theoreticians fail regularily to make some essential discriminations. To speak of the US gains from imperialism may have at least three different (though compatible) meanings: 1. The U.S. ruling class benefits from imperialism. 2. The U.S. _as a nation_ (whatever that may mean) benefits from imperialism. 3. The mass of the U.S. population, i.e., the working class, benefits from imperialism. It is quite possible (I think probable) for Proposition 1 to be true while Proposition 2 is simply meaningless and Proposition 3 is false. I would add what I consider the core of Lenin's perspective, namely that imperialism is _not_ a choice or policy followed by an imperialist nation or ruling class but the very mode of existence of capitalism in its present stage(s). I do not think that Lenin's view necessarily entails his conception of superprofits made from imperialism. That was an empirical judgment. Carrol
RE: Re: core vs. periphery
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27713] Re: core vs. periphery Ulhas writes:There is no undiffrentiated mass of nations called the Third World. Of course. What's constant amongst these countries, though, is the relationship between the center and the periphery, the relationship of domination and subordination. In addition, some countries are more peripheral than others. In any event, core/periphery is a theoretical concept, aimed at helping us understand what's going on. There are few if any theoretical concepts that correspond exactly to empirical reality. JD
