Re: some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class (fwd)

On Tue, 7 Aug 2001, Austin, Andrew wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles J. Reid [mailto:cjreid@sonic.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 6:05 PM
>  
>CR:  "'Imperialism' is an outdated, 19th century concept.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."
> 
>AA:  If "imperialism" is a 19th century concept, what does that make the
> concept "feudalism"? 

CR ---"corporate feudalism" is the actualized concept, one based on
contemporary law and an internal and external modus vivendi/operandi.


>  
> CR: "Study how corporations work, and see how essentially feudal they
> are. But
> if you insist on using 'imperialism' today, please define it."
> 
> AA: Define "feudalism." How are corporations "essentially feudal"?
> 

CR-- No time for a long disquisition. Research it.

> CR: "...defining it ["imperialism"] as the 'highest stage of
> capitalism'
> is nonsense,
> given the
> global corporate feudal structure of today's political economy."
> 
> AA: Which assumes the validity of your conceptualization. 
> 

CR: No, empirical observation.

> CR: "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."
> 
> AA: It is easy to develop a "construct" that eliminates social
> class. The point
> is to eliminate it. (That sounds familiar...)
> 

CR: Again, cannot be done.

> AA: How is it again that merit and class are related? And how are class
> and
> merit related to progress? By merit I suppose you mean that people must be
> motivated to action, that there must be a reward. Where is the proof that
> people in a classless society lose their motivation to action, to progress?
> Isn't incentive under capitalism really this: "work (if you can) or go
> hungry (or go hungry anyway, just work)"? Is this progress?
> 

CR: -- Given the assumption of a multi-class society, one "sign" that
disparities among the classes are diminishing is the ease of mobility
between classes. One method of enabling mobility is recognizing
"merit." In a "capitalist" society, "merit" might be defined as "business
success." However, we can imagine and legislate a society where
"medical research success" has merit greater than or equal to "business
success." In such a society, human ethics would take precedence over the
corporate feudalistic ethics that recognized "business success" as its
highest value. 

> CR: "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."
> 
> AA: Why should communism be reduced to genocide when capitalists have
> ever
> resorted to genocide as an engine of "development"?
> 

CR: -- Good point. Most efforts to eliminate the "opposition" have been
genocidal. In the last century, only Ghandi's or Martin Luther King's
non-violent movements stand out as successful "engines of
'development'." My point is, of course, that eliminating social classes
being impossible, all attempts to do so will ultimately resort to
genocide, since "eliminate" is the operative word.



> Andrew Austin
> Green Bay, WI
>