Xxxx Xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx at xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Sun Jun 17 12:05:59 MDT 2001

Greg, I find your comments highly personal and prolonging. Why do you have
to write such long posts, and not come to the point instead? You mention
dependency theory at least five times below, but there is no specific
discussion of certain authors or books in your post. Sorry but admit that
you have not read or understood the theory, at least, not as much as Dayne
Goodwin or others does. After all, we have have been discussing theories of
"imperialism" here, not only dependency theory. You can find the good
introduction to these debates in Ronald Chilcote's (and Brewer's) book on
imperialism. They are always a good source....

Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Ph.D Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222

> From: Greg Schofield <gschofield at one.net.au>
> To: marxism at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: exploitation
> Date: Sunday, June 17, 2001 1:33 PM
> Thanks George, the  point you made is the actual point of debate. I
> disagree with you, but first rid myself of the mistakes of my own
> expression and readings. I have mistook a sentiment clearly expressed by
> George here, which does appear many times in this list, for meaning
> exploitation in its technical sense, the quote is:
> "the question is rather if core workers benefit from the super
> of peripheral workers"
> Now this is what I am actually disagreeing with, forgive me George but
> have expressed everything so clearly below that I think it really sums up

> what is worrying me. I would ask Dayne whether in general George's
> statement would appear as a fair summation of a general attitude loosely
> associated with this list  and loosely (I emphasize this conditional
> statement) with "dependency theory".
> Now my first point, is about my hypersensitivity about international
> predominating over and sometimes destroying political on the ground work.
> take two points about any international struggle, materially what benefit

> could be given to it, and second, what demands of time and energy should
> set against these benefits. As you can guess I have been time and time
> again seen high profile international struggles given absolute precedence

> over rank and file work, worse I have been in the position where this
> precedence has meant that the international issue should be foisted into
> rank and file work (often seen as an endless supply or recruits and
> to be called out for other reasons), the results have always been
> disastrous and meaningless (though I do not deny that international
> campaigns can be waged effectively, indeed far from it).
> Now none of this applies to anyone on this list because I know nothing of

> anyone's political activities, however, it may explain why I am reading
> things in the light that I am. Having stated this, I can more rationally
> approach George's statement.
> First I want to note that George's post appears to be common sense, and
> second that nothing he says is that far removed from statements found in
> Marx, Engels or Lenin, though I would argue that some of them can be, and

> should be read differently, but I will put exegesis aside.
> I agree with Dayne and George, I have read into various posts that they
> were implying that first world workers were exploiting third world
> in the technical sense, in this I am wrong, it has not been explicitly
> stated. However, George's illustrations would make this a reasonable
> reading, but he explicitly denies the connection and thus I must stand
> corrected.

More information about the Marxism mailing list