[Marxism] Someone hit the nail

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Mon Aug 6 14:48:30 MDT 2007


Joaquín Bustelo, some days ago, hit the following nail:

> Systemic, "automatic" exploitation of the third world nations by
> imperialism through the mechanism of the world market itself.
> The mechanism lies in an unexplored (at least by me -- and I'm not
> an academic or specialist) area of labor theory of value.
> 
> Value is a SOCIAL category. But what happens when the economic value
> structures of two societies begin to interact? Those things that are easy
> for one society to produce get shipped to the other society where they are
> "more valuable," and vice-versa, assuming both are societies based on
> generalized commodity production for the market. As best I understand it
> (and this may not be a very sophisticated understanding) the unfettered
> operation of the market should lead to an "equalization" of values: the
> exchange of commodities builds a bridge between the two markets and this
> leads to equal exchanges, on average, over time. 
> 
> My observation is that part of the labor time of commodities from
> semicolonial countries is not recognized in the imperialist market, and
> too much labor time is recognized in the commodities from the imperialist
> country in the semicolonial market. The missing/extra value 
> 
> And my gut feeling is that this is true because you're not allowed to get
> to an international labor market. Labor power is constrained to remain
> within its national market, and in many ways within its local market. But
> other commodities --at least some-- are allowed to find their value not
> within the national market, but within the international market. Labor
> power is not. And this sets up a situation where systematically, an hour
> of Third World labor is only recognized as a half hour, or a quarter hour,
> when the products of that labor get to New York.

Yes, I also believe that any serious Marxist view of global market 
and thus of international relations must begin by this observation: 
while, as a rule, the imperialist bourgeoisies seek to open up any 
door to the circulation of social production embodied in or 
represented by abstract commodities (the most abstract of all: an 
electronic swap between two bank accounts) the _concrete_ result of 
production, that is, human beings, is subject to ever increasing 
constraints for movement.

The walls at the "limites" (Latin, plural for _limes_, the border of 
the Empire) are the materialization of this tendency. No walls to 
monetary exchanges need walls to human movement. You have hit the 
nail here, Joaquín.

And I guess that if you went to Samir Amin you would find lots of 
theory to support your point.

Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 






More information about the Marxism mailing list