Re: some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class

Well, I certainly don't agree that we have "Corporate Feudalism." It's a
catchy phrase, kind of like "McDonaldization", but the interdependent link
between corporation and state is still quite strong. And, sigh!, I'm not
about to give up the struggle to end exploitation forever because yet
another person has told me that "it is impossible."  And, three, to discuss
Pol Pot without discussing the context of the murder of millions committed
by the U.S. government in Southeast Asia, which also severely destabilized
the whole region, is the kind of analysis best left for Time magazine. There
is plenty of research that indicates that the routine conflicts,
ethnic,religious nationalist, etc. that plague humankind tend to explode
into genocide when there is a desperate economic crisis. So we have to
examine: 1) what causes the crisis; and 2) which "outsiders" are arming
various sides in these terrible conflicts.

Alan Spector




----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles J. Reid" <cjreid@sonic.net>
To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: "WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK" <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class


> Greetings!
>
> Just three comments.
>
> 1. "Imperialism" is an outdated, 19th century concept. Try "Corporate
> Feudalism" in today's global climate. Study Feudalism, and see how it
> applies to how corporations work today in the legal framework that enables
> their activities. Study how corporations work, and see how essentially
> feudal they are. But if you insist on using "imperialism" today, please
> define it. Note, though, that defining it as the "highest stage of
> capitalism" is nonsense, given the global corporate feudal structure of
> today's political economy.
>
> 2. Forget the Marxist concept of getting rid of social classes. If you
> agree that all mass societies with populations > 200 have access to luxury
> goods, then there must be a way to distribute luxury goods -- artistic,
> technological, or psychological (e.g., gold). This means that every such
> society will have at least two social classes: those that consume luxury
> goods, and those that do not. Q.E.D. In short, Marx's idea of eliminating
> social classes was and still is a chimera. And no political construct can
> engineer the elimination of social classes, reducing society to a single
> class. Indeed, if merit is to play any role in the progress of society,
> reducing all members to a single class may not even be desirable,
> irrespective of the fact that this goal is impossible to achieve.
>
> 3. Class analysis is useful only to the extent that we recognize that
> there are social classes and we either want to a) diminish the disparity
> between said classes, or b) maintain and/or enhance the disparity. This
> becomes an ethical/political problem. It seems unconscionable to me that a
> policy that serves to maintain or enhance disparities between social
> classes is considered morally accepable. We can only work to diminish the
> disparities, with the aim of providing a living economic foundation for
> all members of society, while recognizing that there is a limit that
> distinguishes social classes beyond which we cannot cross. The extreme
> empirical example is Pol Pot, who clearly failed in Cambodia with the only
> tool available to him: genocide. Genocide is the only failing tool
> available class-eliminating political practioners, who will always fail,
> for it is they who will ultimately become the ruling class, consuming
> luxury goods.
>
> //CJR
>
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2001, Alan Spector wrote:
>
> > Lenin used the term "labor aristocracy" in reference to the highly
> > skilled workers in the craft areas. (Although who knows EXACTLY what
> > he meant. After all, we read an English translation of his, and
> > others' works, and somehow think that those exact words capture the
> > essence of the original thought.)
> >
> [Snip ...]
>
> >
> > It is true that there HAVE BEEN, and are, some liberals, social
> > democrats, even some who call themselves "socialists" who have used a
> > so-called "class" analysis to avoid the struggle against imperialism,
> > even to the point of attacking immigrants, supporting racism, etc. But
> > using a Marxist class analysis does not AUTOMATICALLY lead one into
> > the camp of those who support imperialism, supposedly on behalf of the
> > domestic working class.  Any revolutionary struggle must make its
> > first priority struggle in those places where the world capitalist
> > system is most vulnerable, with the focus being on fighting in
> > solidarity with those who are the most oppressed. That also means
> > struggling with workers and everyone else in the imperialist
> > countries, to be willing to risk what supposed "benefits" they have on
> > behalf of the overall struggle.
> >
>
> [Snip ...]
> >
> > Capitalist ideology is strong, and there are plenty of low income
> > workers also who abandon their class to become cops, and plenty of
> > people born into low income families who abandon their class to become
> > petty criminals who prey on the working class, and even plenty of
> > stable, low income working class people who will support
> > capitalism/imperialism/racism, though of course the higher income
> > groups, on average, will be more conservative.  The danger of the
> > "labor aristocracy" argument is the way that it leads into analyses
> > that minimize the importance of class analysis. Class analysis is
> > crucial NOT BECAUSE WE ARE ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT HIGHER WAGES FOR
> > WORKERS! Class analysis is cricual because only a change that changes
> > the CLASS RELATIONSHIPS in society will end all the exploitation and
> > oppression that crushes and drains the lives of so many millions of
> > people month after month after year after year.
> >
> > Alan Spector
> >
> > =======================================================================
> >
>
>