OK, let's put an end to all this
dayneg at SPAMaros.net
Sun Jun 17 03:45:09 MDT 2001
On Sun, 17 Jun 2001, Greg Schofield wrote:
. . .
> 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.
DG: Greg, you seem to mistakenly believe that the existence of this list
is based on consensual political agreement, not only that but agreement on
"dependency theory." Actually it is a "marxism" list and if i remember
correctly it is advocated by the moderator of the list that it is not
meant to be a doctrinaire marxism.
You also seem to believe that anyone on the list who makes a
particular argument defending dependency theory at a particular juncture
in the list's convoluted and ongoing arguments, has caucused together with
everyone else who has ever defended dependency theory and achieved
political unanimity - that all agree with any one argument put forth by
anyone else in defense of dependency theory.
This is my guess why you want to start a debate with *the list.*
> 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.
DG: I don't think that 'first world workers' exploit 'third world
workers'; if anyone on this list has said that, i disagree with them.
> 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.
DG: I generally agree with you, Greg. Julio's participation on the list
has left me puzzled because i have seen no indication that he is
organizing "amongst [his] own working class."
> 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.
DG: Again, i agree with you Greg. This is a basis for my criticism of
Julio. He seems to have achieved a unity of theory and practice by
theorizing that what needs to be done is to organize the upper strata of
workers in "the rich countries," that is, *elsewhere.* (BTW i recently
glanced at a chart published in the local news media which indicated that
Mexico was the tenth "richest" nation in the world. i don't recall if the
ranking was by national income, GNP or whatever.)
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.
DG: I also don't recall this qualification being made.
. . .
More information about the Marxism