[Marxism] Fw: The Class Nature of the Chinese State

Néstor Gorojovsky nmgoro at gmail.com
Sun Oct 28 12:19:01 MDT 2007

Anything but the basic social relation, that is the commodity
relation, is _both_ symptom and cause, origin and end. I see you agree
in that there exist "imperialist currencies", something I grabbed
straight from thin air and tachygraphical expertise. But if we agree
on this, then we agree that there are some currencies which, as
against others, enjoy some kind of particular _non economic_ support,
just like imperialist bourgeoisies have in their own states on a world
basis, and the monopoly sector from its own state against the
non-monopoly sector.

And that they are partly a symptom, partly a weapon.

This was open to everyone to see during the 30s, when the "monetary
areas" appeared as the first answer to the great slump. There was a
"dollar area", a "pound area", and a "french franc area". The single
"global currencies" by those times were basically two: gold, which
nevertheless had lost its universal character after the end of WW I,
and -the Swiss franc, because it was the currency in which most
fortunes of strange origin were saved.

Britain, USAmerica and France used their imperialist currencies as weapons.

In our times, the same is taking place. Informal Empires are more
lasting than formal Empires.

2007/10/28, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca>:
> Nestor writes:
> > Well, here´s the kernel of our dissent. Marvin says that
> >> Imperialist states usually have strong currencies, but that is incidental
> >> to
> >> what defines them as imperialist.
> >
> > Ever since Hobson´s work, and most particularly after WWII, an
> > imperialist currency is the main weapon for everyday loot of the
> > world. And I stated "imperialist currency". Not a typo.
> ====================================
> Would it be better then if China, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran did NOT have
> large holdings of imperialist currencies? If so, why do you suppose these
> governments are accumulating them? Would you advise them to sell off their
> reserves of USDs, euros, yens, etc. and instead insist on payment in their
> own domestic currencies?
> The issue is not the currencies in themselves; they are a symptom - not the
> cause - of the deeper historical problem which is, of course, unequal
> economic development resulting in the unequal exchange of goods and services
> between the advanced imperialist countries and the less developed ones. The
> "looting" you refer to has been accomplished over the centuries by all sorts
> of economic and military means. .
> The currency issue cuts two ways. Where nations are able to accumulate
> reserves and maintain control of their money supply, this can be positive,
> as in China's case.. Where nations are forced by foreign capital to
> surrender control of their domestic money supply in order to protect the
> exchange value of their currencies, this can be disasterous, as it was in
> Argentina, where such coercion was formalized in a currency board.
> But the ability to maintain control of the money supply and social spending
> and to avoid economic and social collapse is ultimately a function, in the
> absence of a socialist world economy, of the country's ability to compete in
> the global capitalist marketplace based on its level of technological
> development, labour productivity, and demand for its commodities. The modern
> experience of the Soviet Union and China powerfully underscores this.
> Where these conditions are lacking, developing countries have to beg and
> borrow the imperialist currencies in exchange for guarantees that they will
> protect the FX value of their loans by imposing austerity at home. To the
> degree they can accumulate these reserve currencies through trade rather
> than borrowing -  as is happening today when world demand for the
> commodities (cheap labour, energy, minerals, foodstuffs) of developing
> nations is strong - their reliance on foreign capital is correspondingly
> reduced.
> Perhaps we can agree that, like most things, the function of foreign
> currencies is neither wholly positive nor  wholly negative, but
> "contradictory", depending on who controls them and for what purpose..
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


More information about the Marxism mailing list