Doug wrote:
> (...) Lots of international capital flows are just hot money
> moving in and out. They inject and withdraw liquidity, but don't
> necessarily get deeply involved in the local scene. Direct investment
> is another matter.
>
- But what about the resultant of capital flows? If this re
RE: [PEN-L:27676] Re: e: Imperialism in decline?James Devine writes:
- But Marx did not succeed in passing from the "simple reproduction" to the
expanded one. Even in the 48th chapter of vol.3, after having previously
claimed that the question did not matter, he continued looking for the
realiza
Romain Kroes wrote:
>Geographically, the whole world is
>already more or less integrated into the net of the financial markets.
But how deeply rooted is this net, to mix metaphors hideously? In
national economies, the financial system is deeply bound up with
issues of ownership and control of
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27676] Re: e: Imperialism in decline?
Romain Kroes writes:>Not only Marxists have no coherent theory of contemporary Imperialism, but they are prisoners of a contradiction between Lenin's theory and Rosa Luxemburg's.<
does this conclusion follow from a full search of the Mar
> Does the idea of the exogenous realising of surplus value imply the
> existence non-capitalist modes of production? Are there any such
> "geographical" and "sociological" spaces left in any part of the world for
> the realisation surplus value?
>
> Ulhas
There are very few spaces left, now. Geo
Romain Kroes:
> On the other hand, the exogenous realizing surplus value allows a
> theoretical approach of both imperialism history and today's
> "Globalization", by taking together Luxemburg's and Wallerstein's >works.
Does the idea of the exogenous realising of surplus value imply the
existen
