At 11:17 AM 21/04/2002 +0800, Grant wrote:
That wasn't my contention, which is more accurately that except for actual
formal/military imperialism, (e.g. Britain in India) imperialist and
imperialised have always been poles on a notional axis, rather than being
distinct and permanent things. I
Bill R:
Thanks for a very interesting post and the references, which I haven't had
time to check yet.
I haven't been able to pinpoint the exact quote, but somewhere in _Capital_
Marx (slightly tongue-in-cheek) quotes Adam Smith saying that all entrepôts
are barbaric; Marx's point being that
Charles Brown wrote:
Profits aside, two features of FDI which seem to clearly differentiate developed
and developing countries (in the context of the US foreign investment thread,
imperial vs neo-colonies) appear to be the balance between inward and outward
investment stock (biased towards
Louis:
For the
foreseeable future, places like Argentina and Venezuela are on the
front lines. In places such as these, anti-imperialist consciousness
will fuel the proletarian revolution just as it did in Vietnam, Cuba,
China and many other countries where victory was not achived.
The
Bill B.:
Hong Kong 65.772
Saudi Arabia22.71.3
s. Korea6.1 6.5
Taiwan 7.8 14.7
New Zealand 66.211
Israel 11.16.8
Spain
Grant Lee wrote:
HK and Singapore are entrepots, and
they are city-economies, which indicates the need to qualify the
significance of their numbers
It seems to me that if no western state is very similar --- and I'm not
convinced this is the case --- to HK and Singapore it would have
Ratios of inward and outward FDI stock to GDP, and FDI flows to gross fixed
capital formation are tabulated for most countries in the various World
Investment Reports of UNCTAD. They also calculate a transnationality index of
FDI host countries, which averages the four shares: FDI flows (as a
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:37:28 +1200, Bill Rosenberg wrote:
It's difficult to say what profit figures would
show. The ability of TNCs to transfer their
profits from one country another for tax,
political or internal reasons must make the
profit attributed to their operations in any one
country
LP:
But I wouldn't compare what happened in Australia to what happened to
Nicaragua, however. The USA could have lived with a Labor government in
Australia. It was on the other hand ready to break laws and risk a
constitutional crisis to topple a government that it feared would become
another
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:46:00 +0900, Charles Jannuzi wrote:
US policies toward New Zealand came damn close
when NZ objected to US ships not confirming
whether or not they carried nukes in NZ waters
and harbors.
In the case of Australia, the US has taken the
place of GB as key 'military ally' and
The CIA in Australia, Part 1
... and individuals in Australia. Today, in part 1 ... operations against the
Whitlam government
through the ... for covert actions. Covert Action often means the ...
http://www.serendipity.magnet.ch/cia/cia_oz/cia_oz1.htm - 24k - Cached -
Similar pages
The CIA in
LP:
Perhaps we have a different definition of imperialism. I don't regard
US bullying and imperialism as the same thing. Switzerland and Sweden
have never bullied anybody in recent years, but they are imperialist
powers. US imperialism rules the roost, but it has junior partners
including
April 5, 1998
THE SWISS, THE GOLD, AND THE DEAD
By Jean Ziegler.
Translated by John Brownjohn.
322 pp. New York:
Harcourt Brace Company. $27.
(Review)
Gnomes and Nazis
An account of Switzerland's role in financing Germany's war machine.
By PETER GROSE
(Peter Grose, a research fellow at
Grant wrote:
country inward FDI stock/GDPoutward FDI stock/GDP
Canada 23.9% 26.9%
Australia 28.117.1
UK 23.335.9
France 11.715.9
Singapore 85.8
Louis Proyect writes:
there are degrees. Japan isn't going to become a neo-colony in the near
future, but it's clear that US-based companies use their clout to push
for
opening the Japanese economy to freer flow of capital, etc., so that US
companies can buy Japanese assets, etc., at
Louis:
Basically, I
advocate anti-imperialist slogans in places like Argentina and Venezuela,
in combination with demands against the local comprador bourgeoisie. The
most powerful revolutions in this hemisphere over the past 50 years have
identified with the historical colonial revolution,
Bill Burgess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
country inward FDI stock/GDPoutward FDI stock/GDP
Canada 23.9% 26.9%
Australia 28.117.1
UK 23.335.9
France 11.715.9
Singapore 85.8
Grant Lee wrote:
Louis,
I'm sorry you feel that way. I took your reference to Lenin meant that you
favoured the national front tactics of the early 1920s, which did involve
bourgeois nationalists (in dependent countries).
This only confuses things further. Lenin advocated support for
Louis:
You said:
But I am trying to address the question of whether Argentina is
qualitatively different from Great Britain. My purpose in these posts
is to answer a current within Marxism that asserts that there is no
difference.
In that case you were complicating matters by referring to
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:29:15 +0800, Grant Lee wrote:
I would ask: why would
Marxists any longer seek solidarity with
bourgeois nationalists, except in the now rare
circumstances where the formal national question
has never been resolved?
In my last reply to you, I urged you not to put words in
Louis,
I'm sorry you feel that way. I took your reference to Lenin meant that you
favoured the national front tactics of the early 1920s, which did involve
bourgeois nationalists (in dependent countries).
Imperialism deals with class relations, not which flag is flying over
a country.
I
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:23:17 +0800, Grant Lee wrote:
Louis:
If it isn't already clear, I find references to
monolithic, single-minded exploitative entities
called Great Britain or the United States to
be untenable generalisations, which ignore the
complexity of real class structures and the
Left nationalism is nothing new in Canada and it certainly not a novel
theory of Ross Dowson. Left nationalism was a strong current in the NDP (New
Democractic Party) a social democratic party that ruled in BC,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and even Ontario for a while. It still governs
Manitoba and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yea, there is a lot of superficial truth in this account, at least as
relative to Canada. But there is also a lot of overgeneralization
and
obfuscation in this account also. Since I have already published
several
hundreds of pages and articles on this subject
Louis tells us that that the British behaved differently toward Argentina
than Canada. Why? Was it because the settlers were ethnically different
in Argentina from those in Canada? Did Britain have to behave differently
toward Commonwealth countries?
Paul, could you give us a brief outline of
: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:24882] Re: RE: Re: Argentina, Australia and Canada
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Louis tells us that that the British behaved differently toward Argentina
than Canada. Why
Louis:
If it isn't already clear, I find references to monolithic, single-minded
exploitative entities called Great Britain or the United States to be
untenable generalisations, which ignore the complexity of real class
structures and the historical agency of indigenous layers of capital (in
Correction: this was the topic I intended for my last post, which went put
under The Collapse of Argentina, part one.
In other words, a ruling class based in domestic finance capital emerged in
Canada (and Australia), and these coutnries became imperialist economies;
this did not occur in Argentina. In the case of Canada this is easier to
see if Armstrong's overstress on staples relative to the development of
Hmmm.
Yea, there is a lot of superficial truth in this account, at least as
relative to Canada. But there is also a lot of overgeneralization
and obfuscation in this account also. Since I have already
published several hundreds of pages and articles on this subject, I
am not about to
30 matches
Mail list logo
