The center in a periphery country dominated by that

This preview shows page 90 - 92 out of 167 pages.

the center in a Periphery country dominated by that Center country, and the peripheryin that Periphery country; cC, pC, cP and pP respectively.Diagrammatically they may relate to each other as indicated in Figure 2.13:In the left hand part of the figure the four groups are depicted, the arrow stands forgeneral exploitation, the broken lines for disharmony and the unbroken line for harmonyin the relationship.Figure 2.13.Imperialism,DisharmonyandHarmony,IIn the second part of the figure there is an indication of how LL, ”level of living”, avery broad term, including “material standard of living”, but also autonomy and feelings,may vary over time for the four groups. So far after the Second World War there hasbeen much growth in LL with the cC and cP groups going hand in hand, and a growth inthe periphery in the central countries, for the poor man in the rich countries so to speak,by and large parallel to the growth of the rich, at a respectful distance. But the mostimportant fact is that the periphery in the Periphery has suffered a standstill, partly bybeing outside the system, partly by having the surplus created by them expropriated andappropriated by the three other groups.However, even if up to now the cC, CP ana pC groups have by and large experiencedan increase in LL this may not necessarily last. And the point in the imperialistic systemis that if it does not last but conditions are deteriorating they will also go down together,and possibly up together again-as indicated in the figure. There will also be oscillationcorresponding to this for the pP group, but they will be very small relative to the otheroscillations; that is precisely what is meant by being the periphery in the Periphery.How, then, does this translate into the notion of compatibility regions, and disharmony,harmony and independence? It seems clear that as it is depicted here the first threegroups are in a relation of harmony to each other: they go up together and possibly90
down together. At the same time, however, there is no doubt that the center in theCenter exploits the periphery in the Center. Thus, “harmony” as here conceived of isentirely compatible with exploitation in the sense of dependence-it is only that togetherthey exploit even more those below them again so that in the total global setting theirrelationship nevertheless shows up as harmonious. We emphasize this in order to makequite clear that “harmony” is seen here as a technical term implying positive correlationbetween goal realization for actors, it is not seen as a value in itself, like, for instance,equity (meaning “absence of exploitation”).In the figure as it is drawn there is no clear case of disharmony for it is not assumedthat the growth of the three top groups or classes is predicated on the decline of theperiphery in the Periphery. We could have made this assumption and that would havegiven us a more drastic model of imperialism. Thus, for instance given the meaning of

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture