SOCIAL SCIENTIST Though the argument of Nabuderc at this point is convincing, he neglects one factor in his aniysis. It is the not yet fully realized but already stored and potentially existing surplus value which is contained in parts of the constant capital, namely, those parts which originate in the nco-colonics in the production of raw materials. The production costs in the underdeveloped countries are obviously much lower than in the imperialist countries. For example, the cost of labour per hour in the assembly of electronic equipment at the enterprises of French companies is 60 centimes in Malaysia, one franc in Taiwan, 3.70 francs in Singapore, 30 to 40 francs in France.1 These much lower labour costs are possible because of the much lower costs of the reproduction of the labour force in the less developed countries. But this surplus value is not realized in its proper economic context and system, but in the highly developed capitalist system. Therefore, the surplus value in developed capitalist context originates not only in the exploitation of labour in the developed capitalist countries, but aho in the realization of this stored surplus value which in a different economic context will have a different (in this case higher) rate of profit. This holds true especially when — as in modern multilateral imperialism—advanced means of production arc combined with cheap labour in the neo-colonies. Naturally, in the long run, through class struggle the labour force in the nco-colonics will become more expensive which will lead to a fall of the surplus value stored in the raw materials. This complication does not, however, disqualify the Marxist theory as such. It counteracts simply for a time and under certain circumstances, this is generally a valid tendency. It is important here to see clearly that one phenomenon (or commodity) put in another context has different consequences. The Transnational Company It is quite understandable that a tendency for the rate of profit to fall in the developed capitalist countries gives a push for profit through colonization and neo-colonization. Capitalists do not produce to waste profit nor to have troubles with too much profit; they produce only if they can make profit, under any given conditions, as Nabuderc rigthly remarks (p 165). It is then quite logical that Nabudere sticks to the theory of Lenin regarding the genesis of imperialism. But the imperialism of the era around the turn of the century underwent considerable