global class analysis/unequal exchange (fwd)

>military and political superiority comes from economic superiority and
>the source of this monopoly or oligopoly power of core countries. And
>technological superiority lies behind this. Under today's conditions
>most of the latin american and asian countries has the chance of
>catching up the core countries in technology within ,lets say 20
>years.and if this is achieved the base of unequal exchange will be
>eroded substantially. History has taken this possibility to its agenda.
>it waits for the political owners,and this must be left -wing movements.
>This is the realistic strategy to become a real anti-systemic
>movement,this is the way to make something real for the living peoples.

ahmet, i find your reply somewhat problematic. do you mean to suggest that
it should be the responsibility of the left-wing movements to rise the
status of their countries to the level of core countries?  how does this
differ from another way of saying that the third world should emulate the
socio-economic development of the west, which is basically capitalism?
your method of reasoning reminds me of the arguments made by the 
_revisionist_ dependency theorists (see cardosa and faletto). the
main implication of their analysis is that the national 
bourgeois regimes are alternative means to abridge the gap between the
core and the periphery (let's develop our own capitalism-ISI strategy). it
is hard for me to comprehend any "anti-systemic movement" here, besides a
voluntaristic way of suggesting that _state capitalism_ is a solution to
underdevelopment problem.

it is true that the latin american and asian countries have started
catching up the west technologically. however, this has nothing to do with
the success of left-wing movements there since the left has been
considerably supressed and oppressed, historically and currently, by
the nationalist military and quasi military governments. the technological 
and economic leap forward you are talking about is rather the result of
eventual integration with the world economy, which then needed _stallite_
states that could effectively adjust themselves to the requirements of
global capitalism via suppressing (latin america and south
east-asia) or indirectly incorporating (middle east) the potential
opposition (working classes)to the bourgeois regimes. some writers call
this specific path of development "state-quided capitalism" (Waterbury,
1991) or "bureaucratic-authoritarianism"
(O'donnel, 1973).  

rising to the level of core countries precludes incorporation to the
capitalist world economy through the establishment of authoritarian state
structures. free market liberals see authoritarianism and capitalism as
opposing social formations.however, in the periphery, they are mutually
reinforcing. In the Modern World System II, Wallerstein suggests that the
capitalist world economy creates not only unequal distribution of wealth
and widening of gap between the core and the periphery, but also
asymmetrical social and political structures. this structural
differentiation is necessary because core states need economically
liberal yet politically authoritarian (strong)states to be able to
better conduct their transactions without facing any internal
opposition. if we think about the rising power of multi-nationals in the
third world, this argument makes sense. multi-nationals extend their area
of incorporation by subjecting the individual states to comply with their
rules in the form of cheap labor, free entry, trade liberalization, 
privatization and supression of union activity.      


i think that before arguing for the possibilities of reducing the gap
between the core and the periphery, we should first take into
consideration  who gets what, and how our resources, income and wealth are
distributed under capitalism._ technology_ reflects the changes in the
nature of socio-economic and class relations. it does not guarantee
equality by itself. it also is not a reliable indicator of one's
socio-economic development.


regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran
phd candidate
SUNY/Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College 
dept of pol scie

References:

Guillermo O'Donnel, Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism in
South American politics (California Press, Berkley, 1973).

John Waterbury, "Twilight  of the State Bourgeoisie?", International
Journal of Middle EAst Studies, 23 (1991), 1-17

Immanuel Wallerstein, Modern World System II:Mercantalism and the
Consolidation of the European World Economy, 1600-1750 (Academic Press,
1980).