Charles Brown wrote: > > I know Doug has presented strong arguments against superprofits being used > to buy off some of the U.S. working class, but is there none of that at all > ? Why is the mass standard of living in the U.S. higher than most other > places ? Is it just higher U.S. productivity ? > > With respect to England at that time, Marx and Engels lamented > bourgeoisified workers. >
One can say that (part of) the U.S. working class is "bourgeoisified," and one can claim that there is a relationship between the u.s. standard of living and imperialism, and betweenthe working-class support for imperialism and that standard of living, _without_ appealing to the (I think fallacious) concept of "superprofits." U.S. workers _are_ exploited -- that is, they do _not_ (a) retain their own surplus labor and (b) receive _in addition_ part of the surplus labor produced by workers in China, India, etc. In fact that concept is a barrier to achieving an understanding of the mode of existence of modern capitalism (i.e., imperialism). Lenin & Luxemburg were correct in seeing the inseparability of "capitalism" and "imperialism," but the nature of that relationship needs further explication. Carrol
