Sorry for the screwy formatting on my last post. I have retooled it andadded to
it. Patrick Bond writes: > I had some long discussions about these problems
about 8 weeks ago with> Samir, but didn't find a way to dislodge his support
for South-South> alliances no matter how much of a stretch (the current most
ridiculous> one is Venezuela-Zimbabwe). I reply: Well, does it not seem that
one key and underscrutinized issue is determiningwhat distinguishes a decadent
Bandung I regime from a protean Bandung IIone? And hence figuring out the
criteria separating rotten Bandung I trade/investment/diplomacy/etc. alliances
from promising Bandung II ones? Perhaps this is unfair, but despite my deep
respect for Amin's work too often it feelsas though his analysis is long on
acclamation (very impressive acclamationindeed!) and short on analysis. I guess
he is first and foremost a theoretician. Patrick Bond writes: >Much else of
that interview is fantastic, especially the orientation to explaining >global
capitalist crisis not momentary financial bubble burst. I reply: Well of course
Dr. Overaccumulation himself would lend his endorsement! But isn'tthat just
Marxism 101? It gets you through the door but not out the other end ofthe
passageway. What I find to be a more deft theoretical move is Amin's attempt--
the analysis is not terribly well-developed -- to intermingle analysis of the
over-accumulation of capital, the concentration of capital, and imperialism. If
I'm not mistaken a major portion of a recent big book of his revolved around
the theme ofhow the big powers are engaged in a fraternal competition to win
superprofits inthe leading sectors of global capitalism and jointly committed
to keeping the oldmachinery of uneven development chugging along. I suppose
upon reconsideration it seems to be a rather abstruse updating but not a
fundamental reconstruction of hoary dependencia theories, the added features
being a convinction that global capitalism is ever more overripe (in part
because of previously unappreciated ecological crises) and a conviction that
socialism is one country is ever more illusory. Maybe Amin hasn't made any
dramatic new moves since 1991, which is not to say that his perspective lacks
potency for it. Regarding Amin and China, an irony just occurred to me. Perhaps
it is the very failure of the CCP to achieve one self-proclaimed goal -- that
is, to have the opening up andmarket reform policies yield a crop of PRC-based,
high value-adding Global Fortune 500firms -- that accounts for Amin's refusal
to admit the PRC to the collective imperialists'club. If it's not clear the
irony is this. Amin remains a critical supporter (although anincreasingly less
and less enthusiastic one) of the PRC. Yet were the CCP successful in
incubating a host of Global Fortune 500 players -- i.e. successful on its own
terms --Amin would be forced to admit the PRC to the collective imperialists'
club, were he tohold consistent to his own standards. But the CCP's failure to
meet its own objectiveshas spared Amin this possible embarrassment.
_________________________________________________________________
Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_speed_122008
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
