OK, let's put an end to all this

Greg Schofield gschofield at one.net.au
Sat Jun 16 22:53:49 MDT 2001


On jenyan1 replied to by David Welch and in turn replied to by Charles Brown.

David has challenged this belief a few times recently in this list, so have
I, and I think Julio has touched on it as well. I don't remember any
replies of substance that have not been answered - if I have missed
something let me know.

First world workers do not exploit workers in third world, nor have they
been bought-off.

At 05:30  16/06/01 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> welch at cwcom.net 06/16/01 03:46PM >>>
>On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:10:54PM -0500, jenyan1 wrote:
> >
> > It should also be mentioned that Huato's claim that productivity, not
> > imperialism, is the issue in the South is very much an updated version of
> > 'lazy native' justification of old.
> >
>As opposed to the 'spoiled first world worker' claim which has such a
>positive history.
>
>((((((
>
>CB:  It's the bought off with booty theory, and unfortunately, it seems to
>have validity.


I requote David Welch on this matter in his reply to Barry Stoller:

"On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 09:25:02PM -0400, Barry Stoller wrote:
 > Sad as it is, circulation workers have no choice but to exploit their
production comrades.
 >
You're claiming that circulation workers receive more than the value of
their labour power in pay? This not at all the same as saying that
circulation work doesn't produce surplus value."

If someone can please rebut David on this, but Mark Jones' reply:
"One day, David, you will disappear up one of your own hanging
participles." is neither satisfactory nor comradely.

I would love to again get more involved with this list, but some of these
matters must be fairly dealt with, my view is progressively becoming
hostile to "dependency theory" as a whole, I am finding many of the
assumptions incorrect and have found Julio's arguments persuasive.

So here is my challenge, for what it is worth - someone show that David
Welsh is wrong, or simply demonstrate how first workers exploit third
world, at the moment the whole thing simply seems based on romantic notions
which I find are profoundly anti-worker and embrace political passivity.

I have in the past had comradely dealings with communist rank and file
activists in the third world, despite the huge disparities in resources I
have always found we faced similar problems (much more intense and
sometimes deadly in the third world). I have never met any such activists
who has asked anymore of communists in the first world then do the same
they are doing amongst their own working class - organise.

I have always found that taking up international issues and neglecting
domestic ones, tends to result in very little practical help actually being
received, a comforting amount of self-satisfaction, and an appalling
neglect of the communist duty outlined in the Communist Manifesto to
struggle to realise worker's immediate interests. I cannot remember this
being qualified by the workers needing to be "romatically" super-exploited
as a condition of acting on this duty, as now seems to be the case with so
many communists.

I believe the criticism above stems directly and logically from the premise
which David has attacked, it is not a personal accusation, as personally
and politically I know no-one on this list except by what they write. In
all fairness however, it must be conceded that a romantic error is a real
possibility in all this, it is but a short step from the positions so far
outlined.

Again based on my experience elsewhere where I have found communist
romanticism very much in affect, would someone take the time to show that
this is not a logical imperative of "dependency theory" .

In summation:
1) show that circulation workers and other first world workers do gain more
than their labour price from their third world counterparts.
2) show that either Marx's Manifesto duty has been replaced by other
developments, or that romanticism is not the consequence of dependency theory.

I have made my own conclusions obvious, most based on reading the debates
around Julio, but I am open to argument and would like to be shown that
things are otherwise, if for noi other reason than to expand my own
understanding.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia




More information about the Marxism mailing list