Social Imperialism [O' Lincoln]
suarsos at alphalink.com.au
Tue Sep 30 22:28:54 MDT 2003
Thanks for replying. Like you, I don't have time to post a lot, so just
briefly for now:
>>I really start to wonder just what good those new markets, raw materials,
extra natural resources, cheap labor, tariffs, bayonets, and bombs, did for
the West. Why, the resultant profits must have up and vanished into thin
No, a part enriched the bourgeoisie, the rest were were reinvested, some of
them in the 3d world.
>>Some people say, undermining their own argument, that Western workers are
better off because they waged class struggle for it. So they admit they are
Workers in Malaysia are better off than they are Indonesia. Does this prove
that Malaysian workers are a "labour aristocracy"? I would surmise that
workers in New York are better off than workers in Mississippi, but we
don't say the former BENEFIT from the misery of the latter. On the
contrary: we say "an injury to one is an injury to all".
>>and as for waging class struggle, well that only led to what it led to
because the bourgeoisie accomodated what it could afford to accomodate.<<
I don't attribute it mainly to class struggle; I think the main cause is
the higher labour productivity in the west. Or in Marxist terms, the
bourgeoisie's ability to extract high levels of relative surplus value --
in fact it could be said that workers in the west are MORE exploited than
those in the 3d world. (NB: not more oppressed, more exploited.) Labour
power in the west is more productive, hence its value is higher. It's paid
for more or less at its value -- and even high levels of class struggle
won't change that for long.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism