>> CB: I agree with your overall points.  However, the main  revolution that 
the whole world needs is in the US. Since, the US is the  imperialist center 
of this epoch, a revolution here would give significant  relief to the workers 
in the Third World.   The only ones who can make  a revolution in the US are 
the US masses. So, we US activists have the  responsibility of focusing on 
making a revolution in the US, even if the  potential for revolution is greater 
in 
the Third World. <<
 
 
Comment
 
Having followed the thread on the labor aristocracy closely and portions  
imported to this list - (historic shift), has been cause to review my own  
thinking on this question and its numerous interactive issues. Over the course  
of 
the better part of 40 years my thinking about the concrete applicability of  
Lenin concepts of the "labor aristocracy" to American history and current 
events 
 in our country has shifted repeatedly. The concept of an imperil bribery  
manifest amongst the mass of the oppressing people and sectors of the oppressed 
 
who live out their lives in the imperial centers has never shifted. 
 
This is most certainly a complex issue, which is why it is debated  endlessly 
as the world around us ceaselessly changes. 
 
I do not mean to be a pinprick but desire to contribute to the discussion. 
 
I am not sure if the potential for revolution is greater in the Third World  
in this era that is increasingly dominated by non-banking financial  
institutions. I note the word "potential" and not as an escape hatch but as a  
serious 
comment on a world in flux - shift. 
 
Shift always hits the fan.  
 
Revolution today means some kind of economic communism and not just the  
political means to combat world bourgeois reaction. For instance I have been  
following events in Nepal and what is called the Maoist victory. Where does one 
 
go or what political and economic path is to be traveled after the overthrow of 
 their ancient Monarchal form of bourgeois production relations? Nepal is a t
hrow  back to the past that allows one to look at the future and present - 
again, with  fresh eyes. 
 
I am not sure if the potential for revolution is greater in the Third World  
in this era, although political upheaval is necessary and will take place if 
for  no other reason than to realign the national and multinational state 
structures  with the demands and polices of the debt driven economy or 
speculative 
capital  writing the agenda for the world total capital. 
 
No matter who wins the political struggle in Nepal, globalization means one  
must craft a set of economic and political relations within the world wide  
productivity infrastructure. 
 
Man . . . I just don't know. 
 
What I do deeply feel is that the mass of American proletarians are not  
going to allow themselves to be reduced to the economic and political level of  
the workers and peasants of imperialism historic colonies. Their consciousness  
will not allow for this and by this is meant how they think things out and 
look  at material relations in America rather than the former colonies. 
 
American workers have a consciousness of "rights" that evolved as our own  
history. This consciousness of "rights" and the "right" to economic stability 
is 
 not based on the history of material relations in the colonies of 
imperialism. 
 
While a vast sector of American society daily measures themselves against  
the world proletariat, and are extremely glad not to have to live their lives  
out in some poverty stricken former colony, and have no interest in sinking to  
this economic, social and political level, these same Americans also measure  
themselves against the wealth of American itself and the vast array of  
commodities seeking purchasers on the self of American society.  
 
The issue deepens because 30% of the American working class - the  workforce, 
is composed of temporary workers and are forced to live with their  parents, 
children and neighbors to pay the rent. From the standpoint of the  manual 
workers and peasants of Nepal, all of America is hopelessly bourgeois and  we 
are 
most certainly bourgeois, but not hopeless. 
 
We are proletarian with our own stories. We are not exactly who we were  
yesterday and most certainly will be different tomorrow. 
 
Are we bribed relative to the rest of the world? 
 
Yes, . . . . without question and this is the same kind of bribery that  
seemed to exist between free labor and slave labor in our past. Bribery - a 
very  
real and material thing one pays the house note and rent with and buy food 
under  the bourgeois order, did not mean that the free laborers of the mid  and 
late  1800's did not face the political and military attacks of  capital. 
 
My pension is more that what the average white workers in America makes  
working 40 hours a week. We must always describe stratification of the working  
class to make sense - more sense, to ourselves and others. 
 
Yes, the concept of the labor aristocracy is applicable to America. This  has 
never really been disputed by any sector of American communism. 
 
The dispute - as best as I understand it, has been "what constitutes the  
labor aristocracy" and how is this interactive with the historical colonies of  
imperialism? 
 
Interesting subject. 
 
 
WL 



**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.      
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis

Reply via email to