Labor and Aristocracy

Charles Brown BrownBingb at
Sun Feb 16 15:57:47 MST 2003

From: leonardnadal at (leonardnadal)

It seems a near unanimous position, that workers in the
advanced countries are not "bribed" by super-profits from
LDCs into abandoning their class.  The explanation for
"reformism" and/or the lack of revolution isn't that

CB: I'd like to dissent from this unanimity. I agree with Lenin's position
appropriately updated. I say that certainly the U.S. labor movement has been
significantly opportunist, as a summary, historical characterization up to
2003, and it has been very chauvunist ("patriotic").  Whether this is a
direct bribe doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that a direct revenue stream
can't be demonstrated.  Value is fungible. The subsidy can be indirect. Lenin
( and Marx and Engels) clearly subscribe to some form of a superprofits
"bribery" mechanism for their eras, and I see no reason as to why a similar
mechanism wouldn't elegantly explain subsequent history. I don't care if it
seems dogmatic.  There are further complexities that explain opportunism (
reforms have been significantly reversed recently , and the bottom is not in
sight right now), but the elegant explanation of the classics is central to
the "why" of it.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list