Crisis of world capitalism: Core-periphery inqeuality

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxx at
Tue Jan 9 17:07:32 MST 2001

I am forwarding this to the list. It is a useful summary of number of
crises facing the world economy since the 1970s, written from a world
systemic perspective. Ignore the part on Tom Kemp though. He is part of
a discussion on the specifics of US economy (whether its growth is
exogenous or endogenous etc..)



Regarding Kemp, I think he is off the mark because core capital,
that of the US, had been de-industrializing since the 1950s.   I don't
there is a "classic" form of recovery that is, by Kemp's implication,
"internal."  As for the seventies recession, it hasn't ended, and
its relation to deindustrialization, it is as though Kemp as the tail
wagging the dog.  The global down turn intensified the need for core
to move abroad, and prior deindustrialization, especially product-cycle
changes in East Asia, contributed to make that possible.

Regarding the East Asian crisis, it may be seen as part of the ongoing
downturn or B-phase.  It can be compared to the 70's downturns, as Soros

implies, as a fulfillment of the core de-industrialization process.  But
also happen to believe that there are other key interstate changes
during the 1970-present era, including the proliferation of the
tactics pursued by the US to preserve its hegemony (the effect of which,

given the structural transformations of the world-economy since 1945,
like a lever toward the formation of a world-empire -- see Negri and
2000).  This would include, besides instigating wars (Bosnia, Gulf) and
war escalation that have the same effect, the Structural Adjustment
Policies, which, in furthering de-industrialization, have likewise
economic-financial chaos in those recipient "industrializing" (East
Asia) or
"de-industrializing" (Russia) semi-peripheries which in turn has
resulted in
massive capital flows back to the safe shores of US markets, inflating
share prices, and increasing the US take of global capital before being
abroad again back into those recipient areas to purchase goods at
consequently greatly deflated prices.

Soros may correctly judge that the limits to those capital flows have
reached for a time.  Which is why he supposes things must get worse
before they get better, i.e. there must be more deflationary chaos in
the (semi) periphery so core capital can go back to purchase (invest) at
lower prices. If so, he seems to suggest that de-industrialization and
the programs of its promotion, are nearing the apex of their maximum
effect (at least in the
short to run of 5-10 years).  And it may be that we are in a classic
downturn at the end of this process with recovery coming in, say, 2004.
Wallerstein is accurate, the following recovery would mark the start of
25-30 year upswing not seen since the 1945-70 period.

Elson E. Boles
Assistant Professor, Historical Sociology
University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma
2108 S. 19th St.
Chickasha, OK 73018


Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222

Shop online without a credit card
RocketCash, a NetZero subsidiary

More information about the Marxism mailing list