Comrade Patrick: Thank you very much for the feedback on the article, your comments are very useful for me to clarify the arguments and work on some of the definitions.
I agree that binary categories are not sufficient to account for uneven development, or uneven and combined development and the traits that these acquire today. This binarism is, of course, the greatest problem that John Smith's aproach has. I consider that his work is very important for pointing out the importance of the centrality acquired by the "peripheral" workforce as a result of internationalization of production, but this is an important shortcoming. With the discussion and criticism of Harvey I seek to take the certain elements of Harvey’s theorizing that I find useful with the aim of avoiding falling into such binary categories, while at the same time specifying the real scope and limits that has the “reversal of the draining of wealth” that Harvey proposes. Undoubtedly, it is important to distinguish the different status or positions acquired by countries that do not belong to the core of the imperialist powers or to the “global North”. Some kind of “intermediate” notion, such as that of “semiperiphery” proposed by Wallerstein and other authors, may be useful in this regard. I also agree that, as a result of changes in the division of labor and the growing export of capital carried out by countries of this “semi-periphery”, they participate in some way in the “drain of wealth”, to continue in the terms of Harvey. I introduce this latter definition in the article, although perhaps without enough emphasis, judging by what you put forward in your comment. The point that you introduce, and that I do not share, although it will be the subject of a deeper discussion in a future article I plant to write, is that the category of sub-imperialism is useful to make this panorama more complex and give a more articulated vision of the global hierarchy. Of course, I am familiar with Marini's arguments, and I have also read some of the works that you have been publishing with contributions from different authors on the BRICS and sub-imperialism, as well as your intervention in the Harvey and John Smith controversy. I have the opinion that the category of sub-imperialism complicates more than it helps. There are aspects of content that the concept seeks to account for, as I interpret it, with which I think we can agree. That some of the non-imperialist countries become increasingly involved in the expansion of imperialist relations as their capitalist development increases, exporting capital and competing with the capitalist companies themselves (but “cooperating” in the reinforcement of the global rules of submission ), that this expansion is closely associated with the development of the capacity of these countries to influence beyond their borders, at least regionally to their neighboring countries but sometimes also beyond those boundaries; that they appropriate part of the surplus of other countries, although without ceasing to generate surplus for the capitals of the imperialist countries, all these are important aspect that have developed in the last decades and need to be accounted for. But I think that these complexities or “combinations” can be explained and introduced without the need to attribute to some countries a “partial” imperialist condition, limited by the prefix “sub”. I think that an additional problem for the use of the category is that many of the countries that receive the attribution of sub-imperialists find themselves in extremely heterogeneous realities. Looking at the BRICS, for example, the geopolitical capacity of China or Russia - the latter for military and diplomatic reasons above all- is not comparable to that of Brazil, India or South Africa. I believe that including these countries in the same sub-imperialist status blurs the clearly differentiated trajectories that they exhibit, and the specific weight that each one has in the global economy and politics. I consider that we agree on this heterogeneity, but it seems important to me as a limit to encompass the different countries in the same sub-imperial condition. These are some first reflections on the question. In any case, I recognize that the theory of sub-imperialism seeks to elaborate theoretically an important problem, which is how to account for countries that are located in an “intermediate” condition in their projection of economic and political power, but I think that perhaps more “particular” answers that seek to respond to the status of each country within a global system where the imperialist powers continue to be at the center of global oppression, by doing a kind of “concrete analysis of the concrete situation” of the role of each country, may be more appropriate.. Best regards, Esteban On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 5:30 AM Patrick Bond <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9/13/2020 5:56 PM, Esteban Mercatante wrote: > > The last few decades have been characterized by weak economic growth in > the developed countries, which contrasts with the dynamism shown by China > and other countries on the periphery. What does this tell us about the > relations that characterize the world capitalist system? > In this article I engage with the ideas of David Harvey about imperialism. > > https://www.leftvoice.org/uneven-development-and-imperialism-today-engaging-with-the-ideas-of-david-harvey > > Comrade Esteban, > > This is much appreciated. But if you want some semi-critical feedback > (with the disclosure-proviso that I did my PhD under Harvey's supervision, > on uneven development in Zimbabwe), I don't think the binary categories you > seem to rely upon are sufficiently nuanced to address uneven development, > especially uneven and combined development. There is a critical missing > category, "sub-imperialism," which is a concept Ruy Mauro Marini developed > in the 1960s-70s to explain Brazil's location as deputy sheriff to > Washington not only in geopolitical terms, but also with respect to the > local trajectory of capital accumulation. Harvey advanced the concept a bit > in the early 2000s, in *The New Imperialism. *I think he was mistaken by > not invoking it in the debate with John Smith a couple of years ago, > especially in the *Review of African Political Economy. *(My critique is > here > <http://roape.net/2018/04/18/towards-a-broader-theory-of-imperialism/>.) > > You correctly say: > > Harvey’s statement about a partial reversal in the drainage of historical > wealth could be considered valid: the fact that this “periphery” has become > a receptacle for capital on a larger scale, hand in hand with an increase > in investment by local capitalists (and in China, above all, by public > enterprises), and at the same time these countries have increased their > weight in the generation of capital exported to other countries... some > economies grow and accumulate at the expense of others, and that those that > are showing the most dynamic growth in GDP, manufacturing exports, or > foreign investment are not at the center but are a rather limited sector of > the periphery. > > That "rather limited sector" includes the Brazil-Russia-India-China-South > Africa bloc, which helps explain why they line up tightly with imperialism > when it comes to amplifying the damage done by multinational corporations, > the IMF and World Bank, the WTO, the UNFCCC and even FIFA (recall who > nurtured Sepp Blatter in 2010, 2014 and 2018). My co-editor of the book > *BRICS: > An Anti-Capitalist Critique, *Ana Garcia from Rio, discuss this here > <https://socialistproject.ca/leftstreamed-video/ls305/>. > > > If we consider as a bloc all the dependent countries (typically > characterized by the multilateral agencies as “emerging” and “developing” > countries, or “middle income” and “poor” countries, etc.), they have > continued to “drain” wealth towards the rich countries during the last > decades. > > But these are not "a bloc", they are very distinct in terms of the > emerging global division of labour, in which the West has ceded a great > deal of its primary role in extracting surpluses from the periphery to > semi-peripheral corporations, especially from the BRICS. There are two new > books that deal with this: *BRICS and Resistance in Africa > <https://www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/brics-and-resistance-in-africa/> *(which > I co-edited) and *BRICS and the New American Imperialism *(free for > download here <https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/22401>). > > > I based this on a 2015 study that reconstructs the net results of global > licit and illicit financial flows — including “development aid,” wage > remittances, net trade balances, debt services, new loans, foreign direct > investment (FDI), portfolio investment, and other flows. > > Actually, that particular methodology massively underestimates the damage > done within the broader wealth drain from South to North, because it > ignores what's termed unequal ecological exchange, which in my definition > would highlight the drain of depleted non-renewable natural resources. In > Africa these are typically $150 bn/year worth of *additional *South-to-North > wealth reduction. The World Bank even admits this scale of unequal > exchange > <https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/05/new-evidence-of-africas-systematic-looting-from-an-increasingly-schizophrenic-world-bank/> > by factoring in uncompensated resource depletion. so progressives shouldn't > be so far behind the curve. Samir Amin pointed out this problem starting in > 1972, and it's been one of the core insights of ecological economics, > especially advanced by Herman Daly. > > > ... in the last 20 years the relative weight of the rich (imperialist) > countries and the rest of the world has changed in terms of foreign direct > investment from these countries (destined to productive enterprises, either > by starting them up from scratch or by acquiring some participation in > local companies) and, to a lesser extent, in the return flow from these > countries to other countries. Today, many “emerging” and “developing” > countries also export capital — that is, their residents make foreign > direct investments. Most of these are in other “emerging” and “developing” > countries, but some make their way to the develop economies > > This is where it becomes vital to recognise parts of the "Global North" > that are located in sit of sub-imperialist accumulation such as where I've > mainly been based the last 30 years: Johannesburg, South Africa. This is > not just a branch-plant city but one where voracious extractive industries > have been located since the 1880s when half the world's gold was discovered > underground, sometimes 4km deep. And the accumulation of capital that > occurred here was not just in the circuit of JP Morgan (co-founder of Anglo > American) but also entailed a white patriotic bourgeoisie that - until > early 1990 when Nelson Mandela was released from jail - was perfectly happy > to use Joburg as its hq base. In 1999, there was a massive flight of Anglo, > De Beers and many others of the top > > The critical question is whether the *semi-periphery *(not periphery) > is exporting capital (and returning dividends), and whether this is due to > countries in this category, led by China, experiencing crises of > overaccumulation in their own economies. Where I live, South Africa, this > problem has been acute > <https://www.uj.ac.za/faculties/humanities/sociology/Seminars/Documents/Bond%20Malikane%20SA%20inequality,%20macroeconomics%20and%20overaccumulation%20crisis%20-%20Feb%202019%20draft%20for%20Development%20Southern%20Africa.pdf> > (though of variable intensity over time) since the 1980s and has led to > repeated drives to offshore capital. The most formidable example was > exactly a year ago when the African continent's largest firm (by far), > Naspers, suddenly began relocating most of its wealth (a 31% investment in > the Chinese IT firm Tencent) to Amsterdam, in view of the firm's inability > to recirculate capital profitably in South Africa. > > That overaccumulation and capital export, in turn, means the rate at > which local capital draws in dividends from abroad, compared to foreign > capital drawing in dividends from South Africa, has been relatively high at > around 60% - though nowhere the level of imperialist economies like the > U.S. which hit 215% in 2015-17. A chart (from this book > <https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/22401>) gives you a sense > of the ratios, as imperialist, sub-imperialist and peripheral economies' > have differential abilities to retain or attract surpluses: > > *Profit flows, 2015-17 (average dividend receipts as percent of dividend > payments)* > > [image: imperial subimperial dividend flows highlighting BRICS] > > > The fragmentation of production processes and the international dispersion > of tasks and activities within them has led to the emergence of production > systems without borders — which can be sequential chains or complex > networks, and which can be global, regional, or involve only two countries. > These systems are commonly referred to as global value chains. > > These chains are, fortunately, in retreat - as part of a general > deglobalisation of productive capital including trade/GDP, FDI/GDP and > cross-border-finance/GDP ratios. In 2007 the global value chains peaked at > over 28% of productive capital's output, but by 2018 were down to 22%. Much > more localisation is now underway. I have some brief rough-draft lectures > on the processes here: > > * <https://vimeo.com/419734611>* > > *14 - 2000-19 - World economy <https://vimeo.com/433148687>* > > * <https://vimeo.com/419592712>* > > *15 - 2010s deglobalisation <https://vimeo.com/419734611>* > > *16 - 2010s BRICS <https://vimeo.com/419592712>* > > * <https://vimeo.com/419737166>* > > > Thanks for your stimulating article, keep them coming! > > Patrick > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#1642): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1642 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76822058/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
