Dependency Theory (Mine) - (Nestor) ( Karl Marx)
CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Tue May 29 11:24:13 MDT 2001
>>> gschofield at one.net.au 05/29/01 12:48PM >>>
For instance The quote which Charles gives I cannot see as pertaining to
the debate at all despite the fact it is one of my favourites - the mention
of slavery is not slavery in particular (actual body slavery) but slavery
in general - specifically it is referring to wage-slavery which is clear
from the context. Even if it were referring to actual slavery, I cannot see
that Marx is making anything but a sweeping generalisation which is a bit
much to place the weight of theory on a mere phrase.
CB: It is not clear from the context that he is talking about wage-slavery.
But look at the facts of history. Capitalism is always pushing a sector of the workers
it exploits down below living wage in its colonies and even in its "home" countries,
as with the U.S. slavery and then Jim Crow.
Charles, asserting there is no such thing as pure wage-slavery would appear
to fly in the face of simple observation, but even if it didn't I cannot
see the relative wage differences as either here nor there. This again is
abstraction, not concretising things.
CB: What would fly in the face of simple observation would be that there has ever been
capitalism that didn't have less than wage-labor along with wage-labor. England
didn't have only wage-labor; it had colonies and slaves. Capitalism is from the
beginning a global system with both wage-labor and slave and colonial labor. Today it
has lots of less than living wage labor, a relative surplus population as always.
You can scold all you want, but you have to back up your finger wagging with argument.
Cannot see how you have gone beyond what Julio says in your post.
It is not so much Juliio has hit a raw nerve as that he thinks that the bourgeois
relations of production would stay in place even if the bourgeoisie did not hold state
power. That's sort of silly.
More information about the Marxism