LENIN AND IMPERIALISM 127 The increase in the share of surplus through widening profit margins meant relative losses for both workers in industrial countries and primary commodity producers. The international dominance of the U.S. under the Bretton Woods system also led to mistrust of other developed nations, and the build up of U.S. deficits ultimately led to a collapse of confidence in the dollar, which was the lynchpin of the system. The crisis which erupted in the 1970s was sought to be controlled through controlling costs; through "disciplining" labour by allowing an expansion in the reserve army of unemployed, and by attempting to keep down raw material prices. But this has only been possible through a suppression of overall growth rates. Where growth has been stimulated (eg the U.S.) it has largely been the result of deficits created by state military expenditure; in this context, Patnaik tellingly argues that such a policy only exposes the dangers of precipitating sectoral inflation which may spread to the rest of the economy. A major conclusion from Patnaik's article is that the "control over economic territory"—effectively the access to Third World countries as sources of raw materials and markets become a crucial plank for a systematic and sustained growth in the industrial capitali&t countries. But such control is increasingly difficult, and is also dependent on the nature of national and international politics—and this makes the present dilemma of imperialist countries a particularly thorny one. A number of papers devoted to the critical appraisal of some other recent theories claiming a broadly Marxist tradition are among the most valuable in the volume. Utsa Patnaik identifies a number of "circula-tionist" theories—of Wallesterin, Gunder Frank and Samir Amin—and traces their intellectual origin to Paul Sweezy's "original sin" of identifying capitalism in terms of production for the market and exchange rather than in terms of the social relations of production. Krishna Bharadwaj deals with the theory of "unequal exchange" proposed by Arghiri Emmanuel. Differences in wages across countries are the primary and sufficient cause for "unequal exchange" in this view, in which the low-wage (poor) country sells products embodying more surplus value in exchange for those embodying less, thus creating a net transfer of surplus value to the high-wage (rich) country. Bharadwaj points out the logical fallacies of the argument, as well as the falsehood of the assumption that wage differences can exist with free mobility of capital as long as labour is immobile. Also, by ignoring the specific production relations in the various trading economies (and treating them all as uniformly ^capitalist') Emmanuel puts the entire burden of explanation on exchange relations, which lead him to erroneous results. The paper by C.P. Chandrashekhar takes up the^Starnberg Group's" theory of industrial relocation. This theory suggests that technological dynamism in advanced countries (which have lowered the skill content of ^ch element of the industrial labour process) and the integration of