https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2021/09/30/iippe-2021-imperialism-china-and-finance/
from yesterdays thread, we got this paper floating which argues that there isnt an argument for imperialism. we'll take it from there. also I'd love to see more material supporting this stance!
to me, the author of the linked paper doesnt really answer the question.
the text says middle rank economies arent or cant be subimperialist? unclear how they support this claim.
-
they cite a study showing china as in between imperialist and imperialized
-
their own UE index shows a massive decrease of outflow in china in the last 20 years compared to earlier. this dosnt conflict with the argument that china might be imperialist, because its the recent shift to capital export that we look at here.
author then they later say “imperialist economies and the rest is not narrowing – on the contrary. And that includes China, which will not join the imperialist club.” - how does make sense with the above then?
the linked ppt seems to compute imperialism in total trade. noone is arguing china is imperialist against the west, but this calculation masks the argument of a potential “subimperialism”, in China’s global south trade, because this is a small share of China’s total trade. so we’re not left with any conclusion about “sub-imperialism” or whatever you will call these countries that have net outflows to the old west, but exploit the global south in their own right. this could include overseas China economy, turkey?, the gulf, malaysia. etc.
I’m having a hard time figuring out how John Smiths definition of “super-exploitation” is that much different than regular unequal exchange.
Superexploitation requires payment below subsistence rate of reproduction of workers, and introduces (or returns) third mode of exploitation back into marxism. Unequal exchange doesn’t necessarily imply superexploitation.