Labor and Aristocracy

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


From: leonardnadal at netscape.net (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
simple.

^^^^^
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