[Marxism] On Foreign Direct Investment and "the economy"

[Aaron Aarons]

[The original Subject header that started this discussion has
been modified by typographical errors and character-set
anomalies so many times that I will presume to start a new
thread here. If you reply, please reproduce the Subject header
exactly.]

>Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Walter Lippmann <walterlx at earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: [Marxism]
> Inflation Delivers a Blow to Vietnamís Spirits
>
>There's no doubt in my mind that if we lie down with dogs,
>we get up with fleas. If we make deals with the devil, there
>can be hell to pay for it. One question which we might want
>to ask is: what alternative does a poor country with a large
>population have to jump-start its economy in this day and age?

It seems to me that, from a proletarian point of view, what one
wants in a poor country is to improve the nutrition, health
care, housing and education of the people, especially the
poorest people. On the other hand, from the point of view of
those who already have their basic needs met but want to live
more like the parasitic global middle class (which includes
majorities in some imperialist countries but minorities
elsewhere), it's very useful to create a fetish called "the
economy" and "jump-start" it on the backs of the poor, who are
first made poorer so that they can be forced to do the
"jumping", i.e., provide the surplus labor to pay for the
luxuries of the better off.

>It it impermissible as a matter of socialist principal to
>accept foreign private investment? If it is not impermissible
>in principal, what guidelines can one generally propose when
>engaging in such activity? Also, we should ask ourselves what
>is the alternative to accepting foreign private investment?

What is the particular socially necessary project in each case
that would require either foreign private investment or an
alternative?

>Where a country like Vietnam, or China, or Cuba get the money
>to pay for such projects? And what are the limits which we'll
>need to observe, and what consequences flow from such limits?

Money, or barterable equivalents, is only necessary to obtain
those inputs that must be imported. It is not "projects" which
must be paid for, but certain equipment and supplies.

>Though it's been a long time since I used the word Trotskyist
>to describe myself, I'm still persuaded that a fully complete
>and self-contained socialist society can only really be build
>on the basis of a higher level of social, economic and techno-
>logical development than has been achieved under capitalism

The development of the productive forces of almost every
country in the world today is far more advanced than was that
of even the most developed country, England, when Marx was
writing. The problem is how can the proletarians of the world
(along with the oppressed and super-exploited petty
bourgeoisie) impose their will on how those productive forces
are developed and used.

------------------

That's enough for now. It's past my bedtime.

 - Aaron