sevag sev at SPAMcyberia.net.lb
Mon Jun 19 11:26:31 MDT 2000

>Capitalism did not
> generate a _bourgeois_ Middle East, it reinforced the old regime in
> order to keep the Middle East subordinated to the interests of the
> core.

    On the contrary, when imperialism reached the Levant, and specially
Lebanon, it created a certain market for its goods. To do this Capitalism
itself depended on these agents mainly the compradores to this transfer from
the two tier system Patron/Client feudal system to an underdevleoped
Capitalist 3 tier relationships, whose members were the bourgeoisie linked
to the outside markets of the core.
    However, and your are right in saying that, Capitlaism did reinforce the
political traditionalism and feudal lordship just to keep things in order.
ie if u need to subordinate the people through the markets u created, u need
legitimacy and order from within the society, hence you need those "old"
class members (who were declining in social and economical power) becuase of
the development of this core-perihpery based economic order. Still today the
political legacy of the feudal lords exists. Although the economical role of
these lords dissapeared gradually with the rise of the new order, their
political role remained. It was Imperialism itself which gave them the power
when it created this new bourgeoisie. But it was also the same imperialism
which created the new socioeconomic order which caused the decline of the
power of these lords to the interest of the new class, but again it was a
quite a job-well-done since the alliance of the old with the new was
preserved, becuase these old lords needed economic help and loans when they
did not themselves shift out of the feudalism into this "new" capitalism.

More information about the Marxism mailing list