Nathan:
>One reason the US had fewer "past gains" for the working class compared to
>Europe is that, to its credit on a historical plain, it was more open to
>immigration from poorer nations, which created both continual pressure to
>keep wages down and problems of continually building social solidarity. In
>fact, the strength of the working class in Europe was at least partially
>based on the fact that the "reserve army of the unemployed" had the US to
>emigrate to earlier in the century, while Europe refused immigration entry
>for decades from the countries its colonialism had devastated.
So, the main cause of fewer social democratic gains of the US working
class is not racism & imperialism but immigration?
>The promise of globalization- Empire - whatever we call it - is the end of
>the game of shuffling inequality around the global chessboard, pretending
>that local autarchic versions of equality- themselves sitting on a sea of
>global starvation and misery- are somehow incremental signs of
>semi-socialism attained.
Why do you think Empire represents "the end of the game of shuffling
inequality"? There is no evidence for the end. Living standards of
workers in rich & poor nations are diverging further (especially with
debt servitude & the collapse of socialism in the Eastern Bloc),
instead of converging, even while workers in rich nations, too, are
beaten by capital.
Yoshie
