I completely agree with Matthijs' response; I'd just like to add a couple of points.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at 5:55 AM, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is certainly part of the answer, but it's not a settled question that > the success of Western capitalism in delivering a steadily rising standard > of living to the working class was wholly or even primarily due to > imperialism > I think it is a tautology that *some* of the gains from imperialism went to the Western working class. After all the working class partly shared in the profits of the capitalist class some of which were from exploitation of Third World workers and from the pricing power resulting from captive markets. > Dynamic technological change resulting in higher labour productivity has > also to be taken into account. > As Matthijs points out, it is not clear why workers should be expected to benefit from higher labor productivity. > If they only challenged capitalism and imperialism weakly, this had less to > do with ideological conviction or the material stake they had in the system, > but with a largely realistic appraisal of the balance of forces and limits > to their own power in the workplace and political arena. > I am afraid if this is true, it does not reflect so well on them: "realism" sounds, to put it bluntly, like a cowardly excuse for going along with a system that they recognize as immoral. > Clearly I don't agree with Matthijs that a "labour aristocracy on one side > can only exist at the expense of another side." As Jim Devine earlier > suggested, the contemporary "labour aristocracy" includes himself and, by > extension, most everyone on this list and their workmates, friends, and > neighbours. Matthijs would have to demonstrate that the skilled working > class in each country has a material interest in thwarting economic > development and the creation of skilled jobs elsewhere, or, more to the > point, that concerns about foreign job competition are so pathologically > endemic that they lead to support for foreign wars and imperialism. > I'd not go so far as to claim that Western workers actively support foreign wars and imperialism. However to some extent, there is a zero-sum game between Western and Third World workers. Outsourcing and globalization increase wages in the Third World directly at the expense of Western workers. To the extent that Western workers oppose outsourcing, immigration etc, they are opposing an increased standard of living for their Third World comrades. Yes, most of us on this list are part of this "labor aristocracy", and we do owe part of our privileged position to imperialist exploitation. It is an uncomfortable fact, but not something we can wish away. -raghu. -- Q: What did the apple say to the orange? A: Nothing, apples don't talk.
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
