Reading through Lenin's chapter on Imperialism I cannot help but note the uncanny similarities between the economic situation he describes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the economic situation of 2010. Today, nations at different levels of development with respect to the means of production aspire to export capital. The location of production seems to override the demands of local labor and location is in fact determined by large corporations that justify particular locations in the name of increased efficiency. The pattern of economic boom periods followed by crises can be found in the early 1900s and the 2000s. The establishment of monopolies across different fields of enterprise in the name of vertical integration and improved management of the supply chains mirrors Lenin's description of the consolidation of power in the hands of cartels. From lysine to oil and petroleum products to pharmaceuticals - price fixing and manipulation of production rates and levels is endemic to capitalistic society. Most striking though is Lenin's chilling description of the expansion of the role and powers of banks to intervene in production. From mere intermediaries to owners of vast amounts of financial capital employed by capitalists in the procurement of industrial and human capital, banks have witnessed a massive consolidation in the industry that has been hastened by the financial crisis of 2007. ( see this for a quick understanding of the extent of consolidation in the banking industry the post-war era). The apparent democratization of stock ownership has led to a situation where a small amount of financial capital can be leveraged to exercise control over large amounts of industrial capital and production. Without doubt the direction of export of capital leans heavily from the "haves" to the "have-nots". What is interesting is the observation by scholars that labor generally flows in the direction opposite to the direction of flow of capital (for e.g. Bauder and Sassen). How can one then explain immigration using Lenin's definition of imperialism?
Allow me to be a devil's advocate and speak for students who come form the "other"-ed cultural background, who were, and perhaps still are embracing multicultural imperialism in area studies, or in "inter-cultural communication" in this case. My point is, so long as the site of knowledge, and knowledge creation is West-centered, students from non-western backgrounds will face the difficult choice between co-optation and exclusion. As an international student, you are expected to "bring something different to the table", and the "table" can be a frustrating place: at best it will be in the form where the non-western culture that you represent is "seen as a rich storehouse of timeless wisdom from which the present had degenerated", at worst it will be a cultural freak show. I was shocked and deeply disturbed one time when a Chinese scholar invited to give a lecture on "culture" spent 15 minutes talking about "Chinese...
Comments