At 12:41 PM 9/23/99 -0400, Max Sawicky wrote:
>I don't understand why it's not possible to think that the 
>combination of internal changes within Europe plus imperialism 
>combined to produce capitalism as we know it. Why is such a 
>passionate matter of either/or dispute?
>Doug
>>>>>>
>
>Looks to me like the subtext to the essentiality of
>colonialism argument is that capitalism itself is
>not a stage of historical progress, relative to
>its predecessors, but merely a different form of
>the same underlying misery and oppression.
>
>No progress means little scope for reform, plus
>the irrelevance of the working class in the 
>industrialized countries, particularly white
>workers in the U.S.  Ergo the implied
>necessity of third-worldist revolution.
>Lin Pao (sp?) and Che are still with us.
>Morbid symptoms and all that.


Max, I would also like to call attention to the religious aspect of it -
third worldism is a form of a messianistic cult of the kind that were
popular in the 19th century Europe (originating in the hegelian right, if
memory serves).  Essentiaslly the idea was to self-portray a disadvantaged
nation or a group of people as the "messiah of nations" that is, a nation
whose suffering significantly contributes to the 'salvation' i.e.
prosperity of other nations.  This way, disadvantaged groups could
vicariously overcome their marginalization and see themselves as the 'pivot
of the world.' Kind of biblical eschatology ("the wretched of the earth
inherit the kingdom of heaven") without the other-worldly mumbo-jumbo.

wojtek




Reply via email to