Re: Which Marxism? (fwd)

>I meant to add on this point that by England showing the future, the KM's
>point was that countries would become "developed" like England.  Quotes
>on
>that word because "developed" as he saw meant worsening conditions for
>the
>masses in England as polarization of wealth proceeded (which is what
>Engels'
>"Conditions.." is all about of course).  However, about the opposite has
>occurred: a large middle class formed in the core while P conditions
>worsened.  

capitalism meant, for Marx, accumulation of wealth at the expense of
others, whether in England or elsewhere.  capitalism bothered Marx in
every context because it caused unequal distribution of wealth everywhere. 
he did NOT mean by development that the British model was ideal (without
any problems) and that every country should imitate it to reach a certain
level of prosperity. what you suggest above is a modernization perspective
like Rostow's, which takes capitalism for granted, not Marx's views. marx
was a critic of capitalism. he was not ALSO happy with the British model. 
he knew that the factory system in England was sucking. he knew that this
developoment was a development benefitting the capitalists. he was QUITE
awere that whoever goes under a same process will be subject to these
unhuman conditions. capitalism is a universal problem for Marx regardless
of context. what the world system theory contributed was that the
conditions in the periphery were much worse than the conditions in the
core (coerced labor, slavery). i agree with this, of course. but i do not
think Marx was totally blind to this problem. he was the one who first
pronounced slavery in native America, talking about the development of
capitalism and colonialism there.

regards,

Mine Aysen Doyran