Greetings,
On Sun, 3 Aug 1997, James Devine wrote:
> concerning Martha Gimenez's post on Argentina: maybe it's time to replace
> the term "globalization" with "immiseration." That is, what's happening is
> not globalization as much as the working out of Marx's predictions at the
> end of vol. I of CAPITAL, on a world scale of course.
>
> In the late 19th century, the immiseration scenario was replaced in many
> countries (rich ones and import-substitutors) by nation-based
> industrialization. I don't see any global institutions in place currently
> that can form the basis of a version of capitalism that would share the
> benefits of productivity gains more equally. Instead, we see harmonization
> of wages (and environmental restrictions and social programs) downward,
> encouraged by the IMF, the World Bank, the US, etc., i.e., the extant global
> institutions.
>
> Maybe there's room for counteracting this immiseration on a national level,
> but there aren't many national working classes that are organized and
> conscious enough to pull it off. But that doesn't say we can't try.
>
> Jim Devine
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Terms which may more accurately reflect objective developments
than those expressed by "globalization" and "immiseration" are
"imperialism" and "anti-social offensive."
The only way to defeat the bourgeoisie's anti-social offensive is
by developing working class unity and independence, by fighting for a
pro-social program, elements of which include a moratorium on
debt-servicing and increasing investments in education, health care and
social programs. More needs to be put into the economy than taken out.
While the objective conditions are overripe for revolution, the
subjective conditions still need to be further developed.
Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
