labour aristocracy, cont.

DMS dmschanoes at earthlink.net
Mon Feb 3 17:31:57 MST 2003


LP,

I disagree (big surprise, right?).

1.  The truth is the whole. Certainly, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador
developed revolutionary movements.  Those movements were defeated..

2. The defeat included just those roll backs of land, welfare, and wages
that had threatened the authority of capital.  But the roll backs and the
reimposition of terms of empire did not benefit the workers in the advanced
areas.  On the contrary, it was part of the global assault on the workers of
both advanced and less developed countries.

3.  There were important movements in the developed areas, Portugal,as TOL
points out, although I would point out that Portugal was the least developed
country of Western Europe.  There were also the struggles of the Italian
workers, the British workers against, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher.  In
addition the Chilean revolution was in one of the most  developed countries
of the "3rd World," and that movement was solidly urban working class.

4. "Not since the end of WWII?"  OK, exactly! Sixty years.  And what was
WWII?  It was the product of the destruction, the liquidation,  of the
workers' movements in those relatively privileged homelands.  So if the
people of Nicaragua or Chile or El Salvador don't rise up in 60 years,  what
will that say about empire, capital and privilege?

5.  I think a lot was done wrong in the 60s/70s but not because the workers
were privileged.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list