The EU question (Response to Louis - II)
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu May 3 08:45:27 MDT 2001
>But, let's look at it from the point of view of the historical possibilities
>of India. If the overall labor productivity in India's economy was so high
>at the time, how come they weren't storming Manchester or, better yet,
>exporting its scheme to England and help it transition into communism thus
>sparing us all this asphyxiating Anglo-American imperialist hegemony?
You are asking the wrong question. Great Britain effectively shut off the
possibility of capitalist development in India and China by introducing
capitalism. If this sounds like a contradiction, it gets to the heart of
the contradictory role of European capital in Latin America, Asia and
Africa. It effectively stunted the class formation of an indigenous
bourgeoisie and made coolie labor available for super-profits, while raw
materials were being extracted to serve manufacturing in Europe. Since you
are fond of scare quotes, let us call this "capitalism" to distinguish it
from what took place in Great Britain.
>Nothing. Why not a direct leap to communism? Let's have it all already.
>And, as we say in Mexico, lemon ice cream on top.
Are you for communism? That is reassuring.
>I'm for being useful.
Yes, I was afraid of that.
>The Marxist movement of 1910? I don't know about that, but you seem to be
>on the right track about him.
Gilly never had a single word in "Revolucion interrumpida" about the
futility of Zapata's Indian followers pursuing ejido claims from the 17th
century. You sound like somebody who would have told them, "Tut-tut. It is
far better that you become wage laborers in the city. That is the
precondition for socialism, according to Marx."
Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
More information about the Marxism