Re: some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class -- again

1) If having a government "controlled by corporate interests" is the key definition for "Feudalism", then does that mean that the governments of Europe during the 1200's were dominated by corporations?  Feudal principles don't ESSENTIALLY refer to reverting to some forms pre-civil society where electoral democracy is ignored and the center ruthlessly directly extracts its wealth from the poor, including from outlying areas. Those forms are also present in decaying capitalism/imperialism (as capitalist empire reaches its limit); that is what characterizes "facism" not feudalism. The difference is that the underlying engine is still exploitation of labor at the point of production (including industry, agriculture, and various to-called white collar types of jobs.) And the economy is subject to all kinds of "booms and busts" characteristic of capitalism.

At the risk of using a metaphor (which does not prove anything but can help generate more flexible thinking), when many processes age and approach crisis, they revert to some similar FORMS that they had when they were very young. But a feeble 100 year old person is essentially different from a feeble 100 day old infant which still has much potential for growth, and a desperate decaying system with no way to grow except by constant destruction and rebuilding is quite different from adesperate system in its infancy which is growing very rapdily and destroying what lies its path because it can expand quickly over its more primitive opponents.

As to classless society -- we've all heard the tautology before about how itcan't be because it can't be. You explain to a farmworker why she deserves a lower standard of living, worse health care, etc. than an accountant. Explain it based on merit.

You brought up Pol Pot as an example of "failed communism" resorting to genocide. Then I bring up the U.S. role in destabilizing the region (including in supporting Pol Pot himself) and you quickly decide that such a discussion is irrelevant. There are plenty of other genocides created by capitalism acting in a rational way to defend its irrational class society. It is capitalism, and class society itself, which are irrational in the sense that they harm the overwhelming majority of people in the world. Once someone accepts the validity of capitalism's basic premises, it becomes childish for that person to complain that the capitalist system isn't "playing fair" and then to beg these genocidal murderers to please "play nice."

Alan  Spector




----- Original Message -----
From: "CJR" <cjreid@sonic.net>
To: "Alan Spector" <spectors@netnitco.net>
Cc: <wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2001 6:15 AM
Subject: RE: some thoughts on globalism/imperialism & class


> Can you name a state that has a government that today is not controlled
> by corporate interests? Can you name a Fortune 1000 corporation (which
> control most of the world's wealth) that does not operate in accordance
> with Feudal principles?
>
> You don't have to give up the struggle to end exploitation, just forget
> having the elimination of social classes as a goal, since THAT is
> impossible.
>
> The irrationality of the American war in Southeast Asia is a
> non-sequitur to the argument that any effort to create a "classless"
> society requires a policy of genocide.
>
> //CJR
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Spector [mailto:spectors@netnitco.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 8:34 PM
> To: Charles J. Reid
> Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK
> Subject: 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
> > >
> > >
> =======================================================================
> > >
> >
> >
>