aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]

I don’t know what this is

  • 0 Posts
  • 40 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
Cake day: July 26th, 2020
  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.nettoScience@mander.xyz•Unequal exchange of labour in the world economy - Nature CommunicationsEnglish
    3·
    3 months ago

    I’ve updated my first response.

    But as for looking at it in a Marxist way (obviously you are correct in that Marx did not mention unequal exchange, the chapter of Capital based on international trade never saw daylight and it is impossible to know what Marx would’ve written), Samir Amin came up with two accumulation models.

    I have proposed two accumulation models, one involving the center and the other the periphery. The model involving the center is governed by the articulation of Capital’s two Departments, I and II, which, by that fact, expresses the coherence of a self-centered capitalist economy. Contrariwise, in the periphery model, the articulation that governs the reproduction of the system links exports (the motive force) to (induced) consumption. The model is “outward-turned” (as opposed to “self-centered”). It conveys a “dependence,” in the sense that the periphery adjusts “unilaterally” to the dominant tendencies on the scale of the world system in which it is integrated, these tendencies being the very ones governed by the demands of accumulation at the center…

    These conditions, governing accumulation on a world scale, thus reproduce unequal development. They make clear that the underdeveloped countries are so because they are super-exploited and not because they are backward…

    The “two models,” nonetheless, constitute but a single reality, that of accumulation operative on a world scale, and characterized by the articulation of Marx’s Departments I and II—grasped henceforward at the global scale and no longer at the scale of societies at the center. For the periphery’s exports, at this scale, become constitutive elements of constant capital and variable capital (whose prices they lower), while their imports fulfill functions analogous to those of Department III: that is to say, they facilitate the realization of excess surplus-value.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.nettoScience@mander.xyz•Unequal exchange of labour in the world economy - Nature CommunicationsEnglish
    31·
    3 months ago

    There is no unequal exchange. Workers in more developed countries get paid more because they produce more per hour.

    …

    There are statistics showing the amount of steel or the amount of grain produced per man-hour of labour in India might be 10-100 times lower than in the USA or UK (because workers use more technologically advanced tools).

    The important question to ask here, if we want to work within this model, is why countries in the periphery do not use the labour techniques and tools used by by centre and combine this with their lower peripheral wages? Surely this would generate more profit than using their inefficient techniques. Secondly, if this could be the case, why hasn’t all capital fled from the centre to the periphery, as this would make the most profit. Lastly, given the current distribution of techniques and technology being what it is, one has to ask the question: is the international division of labour that results from that, with the centre specialising in certain branches of production, and the periphery responsible for other branches, compatible with equal exchange? If it was, the fractional share of products the centre produces that are exchanged for what the periphery produces, at a single price for each product, should be equal. But is it?

    One possible answer here is that labour is not exploited uniformly; the rates of surplus value are unequal. And this needs to be explained in terms of value, rather than in direct prices. And how is this unequal exploitation of labour manifested? It is manifested through unequal exchange. It is this unequal exploitation of labour, and the unequal exchange that results from it, that dictates inequality in the international distribution of labour. Demand is distorted structurally across a global scale, which accelerates self centred acculturation in the centre, while hindering dependent, extroverted accumulation in the periphery.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.nettoScience Memes@mander.xyz•degree in bamfEnglish
    152·
    8 months ago

    It’s an American obsession.

    Are you just going to pretend that there is no racism anywhere else? It was the Europeans that colonised half the planet and invented the concept of “whiteness”, and proceeded to divide and carve Africa up. Are you just going to pretend that this action has had no influence on modern European ideas around race and class? And I haven’t even mentioned the Roma people. Or the ongoing genocide in Palestine, which has a racial component. Or the rise of Hinduistic fascism in India. Or the issues around race in my own country in South Africa. Racism is a global issue.

  • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.nettoScience Memes@mander.xyz•the fuckgraphEnglish
    13·
    10 months ago

    Well it is a 20 year old study. Attitudes towards LGBT people were much less accepting back then. The participants in this study are now between the ages of 34-38 most likely. Probably a lot of people in the closet and keeping their relationships discreet or not having relationships, and some that haven’t realised that they’re gay yet.

    If you did this study today, there would be a lot more gay sex, but probably less than we’d guess still. LGBT people are still a minority after all.