The role of the developed and undeveloped capitalist nations in revolution.
mluziett at shrike.depaul.edu
Fri Feb 16 11:39:33 MST 1996
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996 MD575151 at aol.com wrote:
> Whoever cares,
Don't denegrate yourself.
> Advanced capitalist states do not have rotten conditions. The US worker
> is still explioted and her/his labor is still alienated, but the working
> class in the "west" has reached a comfort zone. Why would any worker want
> to give up what we have in order to risk their life in a revolution? The
> objective (material conditions) conditions in the Capitalist states are
> fairly decent and therefor the subjective conditions (the workers attitude)
> is to not risk a revolution.
While things for American workers are relatively good, compared to those
in the empire, remember, 70,000 workers die each year from industrial
diseases, accidents, etc. And, it isn't the *most* oppressed workers that
revolt. At a certain stage of represion, revolution becomes unfeasable.
There is this theory of the "J curve." It supposes that revolutions happen
when workers' standards of living increase for several years, then drop.
They see they rewards for what they have done going to those who don't
deserve it, and strike back. History tends to back this theory, though it
may be a concurrent, and not causal.
On the other hand, change in a system doesn't come from its center, but
from the perifery. Ancient slavery was overthrown by barbarian invasion,
fuedalism was first overthrown not in Spain, Germany, etc, but the
Netherlands and England, capitalism in Russia. Where the links are
weakest is where the chain breaks.
But still, remember France '68.
> The only reason that the working class in the advanced nations are so well
> off is due to the wealth created by imperialism. Even though the working
> class only sees a small fraction of this wealth, what they do see is enough
> to make them semi-comfortable, therefor conservitive.
Not true. The workers of South Korea, Tiawan, Singapore, and Hong Kong are
all relatively well off, and they are not imperialist nations. The workers
of the imperialist world are well off because of their extremely high
productivity and unions. However, this same productivity undermines the
ability of capitialism to make a profit off investments, so they need to
find other avenues of investment for their capital, which is the third
world. And, as we can see, the ability to rake in huge profits from
overseas, does not mean that the bosses won't try and squeeze the workers
at home as much as they can.
Ignore the Stalinist rhetoric about Trots pushing for simultaneous world
revolution. It's a characture of what we believe. However, revolutions
come in waves. When one is successful, more happen. Hell look at what
just happened in Europe. A major strike in France sparked similar
strikes in the Benelux countries.
While I have great admiration for the Cuban revolution, I have never
really accepted Castro as a communist. He joined in order to dig at the
U.S. imperialists invading his country, and to get aid from the U.S.S.R.
His theory I have always thought poor, and somewhat opportunistic. It
sounds to me as if he's try to justify his isolation.
Marc, "the Chegitz," Luzietti
personal homepage: http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett
political homepage: http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett/chegitz.html
o/~ When an eel lunges out and it bites off your snout, 'ats amore o/~
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism