pcg at panix.com
Sun Aug 4 00:32:53 MDT 1996
> MIM obviously equates the two, and therefore writes off the whole
> working class in the imperialist countries, or at least that section
> of it from the dominant nationality. They not only see the
> bourgeoisified workers of the dominant nationality as being a
> distinct SECTION of a single class, but they see this section
> of people as being a separate CLASS from the non-bourgeoisified
> workers. (And maybe a separate class from the bourgeoisified
> workers of oppressed nationalities -- their analysis is so
> convoluted and unscientific, I can't really follow it.)
I find MIM's analysis of this and other topics very interesting, and
their analysis seems to agree with the world I observe. The wealthier
portion of the working class in the imperialist nations seems to
consistently ally itself with imperialism against the more impoverished
sections of the working class in their nations and throughout the world.
Most of world's people do not see the wealthier workers of the US as their
real or potential allies. Perhaps these political facts have a basis in
concrete economic realities.
On the other hand, I don't know much about economics or Marxist theory, so
I may be at fault at here.
Certainly, I can understand why we would prefer things to be otherwise.
Maybe someone can explain to me why MIM's idea is flawed not just in its
details, but is plainly false - "lunacy" as Carrol Cox writes.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism