Germany is against dolarization

Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky gorojovsky at
Fri Jun 30 06:11:34 MDT 2000

En relación a Re: Germany is against dolarization,
el 30 Jun 00, a las 10:49, David Welch dijo:

> On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:06:14PM -0300, Nestor Miguel Gorojovsky
> wrote: >                                   (and in this sense, > sorry
> to tell you, it includes workers who vote Socdem and to not >
> overthrow their own bourgeoisies but indulge in overconsumption out >
> of surplus extracted from the whole planet) > What's your
> justification for this statement?

Look, David, I know the statement above may sound abusive and
insulting. And I do not have the statistics handy. But all that
imperialism is about is avoiding civil war in the core by
overexploitation in the periphery. Not news, in fact, and this is the
foundation of the Leninist conception of imperialism. Cecil Rhodes
himself (who was anything BUT a liar) said it most clearly: he said
that he was an imperialist due to reasons of stomach, and he was

The only explanation I can find to the profound conservatism of the
working class in the central countries of the  capitalist world
system is the admission that the Leninist thesis of the "workers
aristocracy" was, at best, reasonable only for the times of Lenin,
and that corruption of the working class had advanced much more than
even the most fervent revolutionary of that moment was in a condition
to realize.

In fact, were it not that I do seriously believe in proletarian
internationalism, I would state without any qualification that one of
the things to think about when we cast a glance at the whole
experience of the 20th. Century has been the despicable conservatism
of Western European workers, particularly in France and Italy. Yes, I
know that the conditions in which they had to wage their struggles,
particularly after World War II, were terribly difficult, and it is
not me who will blame others for not having realized the full
consequences of their actions.

But the French proletarians COULD have gone ahead ("with the leaders
heading them, or with the leaders beheaded" is a topical Peronist,
that is, national revolutionary, saying in Argentina, which many self-
appointed socialists should take note of) and, dammit, DO their
revolutions after 1945. They did not. One can have a long, long, long
conversation on the role played by Stalinism, and so on. But that is
to put one's shit at the neighbour's door. The question is "why
didn't the workers steer the French CP to the Left"? If someone gives
me a better reason than imperialist expoliation of Algeria, Western
Africa and Indochina, then I would not say that they did it because
they knew that imperialism, though put them in a subordinate and
unpleasant place, had worse places reserved for the rest of the
working class on this Planet Earth.

In a long retrospective view, I am sure that the cowardice of some
proletariats will be a topic in future books on the Fall of
Capitalism and Imperialism, such as the moral degradation of Roman
peasantry and proletariat are a topic in our current books on the
Fall of Slavery and the Roman Empire.

Well, I had vinegar for breakfast today!

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at
gorojovsky at

More information about the Marxism mailing list