Thoughts?
Don’t agree with his assessment at all pretty much, but still interested what yous think about that stance, because really I’ve not seen much theory based discussion on the topic since the early days of the conflict.
Thoughts?
Don’t agree with his assessment at all pretty much, but still interested what yous think about that stance, because really I’ve not seen much theory based discussion on the topic since the early days of the conflict.
Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. What I’m asking about is theory and not the current situation. Marx defines exploitation of workers as appropriation of surplus-value produced by them, and that it’s structurally embedded into the nature of capital as self-valorizing value. If there’s no appropriation of surplus value, the “capital” can’t grow, and thus it’s not valid to call it capital at all, in the Marxist sense. Hence, if capital is by definition a cycle that involves exploitation, capital export must involve exploitation export.
This is a different matter than more colloquially used piss-in-bottles exploitation of workers (that’s means to extract more surplus value from workers, but aren’t structurally embedded), or certain Western hegemon country learning their foreign policy from a spoiled elephant in a glassware store; nor am I trying to make any sort of moral judgment about good and evil capitals.
Indeed! Lenin writes about this in “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism”. Upon maximization of profit within national borders, monopolies expand abroad and the proletariat of those countries have their surplus value stolen by foreign bourgeoisie rather than the local capitalists. I don’t think it’s accurate to call this process “exploitation export”, however. It’s merely switching the exploiters from local to foreign. It’s more like neo-colonialism because once resources and surplus value go abroad, it’s pretty much impossible to get it back, whereas the surplus value stolen by national bourgeoisie could be reclaimed through revolution.
Or at least that’s my understanding of it.