The EU question (Response to Louis - II)
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu May 3 11:53:04 MDT 2001
>What you're saying is, it doesn't spill over immediately. I don't disagree
>with this. You're saying the profits are not reinvested there. Some are,
>but less say that they are not. Why? Because there are not other
>sufficiently profitable opportunities there, I guess. If there were, then
>the profits would be reinvested there readily.
I have a less philosophical attitude. I advocate the course of action
Castro took in 1960. The fucking RCA plants and all the rest of the
maquilas should become people's property and the jackals who run the plants
should be sent packing to Miami. Then the armed people should decide where
and when and how the profits should be invested, not wait for the stock
markets to make that decision.
>The key question is profitability. Let me make it more outrageous: If the
>legal, political, and economic policy framework in the country in question
>doesn't provide for secure capitalist investment, then apparently profitable
>opportunities are not as profitable when you look at them again. Hence,
>profits will not be reinvested there. They'll be secured and taken away.
>But this doesn't refute what I say.
You are right. This is absolutely consistent with everything you have been
>In Latin America, what's keeping capitalism from being revolutionary, as you
>say? Imperialist exploitation or the lack of legal and political conditions
>for capitalism to prosper? And why recognizing this reality is interpreted
>as a betrayal to socialism? I don't embellish capitalism, but I'm not going
>to preach to the bishops in this church either.
Lack of legal and political conditions? You haven't been dipping into
Hernando de Soto when nobody is looking, you cheeky devil.
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
More information about the Marxism