Capitalism _always_ means that a few people profit from the exploitation of a majority (i.e. wage earners): to extend your metaphor, there are plenty of workers in developed countries who can't afford SUVs, and otherwise benefit much less from the "blood of Nigerians" than do the Nigerian compradors and/or national bourgeoisie.
Of course there are workers who can't afford SUV's, but car ownership in the USA and other wealthy nations is wildly disproportionate to that in the 3rd world. According to the World Resources Institute, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) countries had 70 percent of the world's automobiles. In is the United States, 58 percent of households owned two or more cars and 20 percent owned three or more.
For every 1000 people in the OECD countries, 561 own cars. In the 3rd world, car ownership rates are far lower. In 1993 there were about 68 cars per 1,000 residents in Latin America and the Caribbean, 29 cars per 1,000 residents in East Asia and the Pacific and about 14 cars per 1,000 residents in Africa.
I would suggest that when 20 percent of the households in the USA own 3 or more cars and only 14 cars per 1,000 residents in Africa, the primary contradiction--at least for the time being--will be between this imperialist power and nations in the South. This is not a particularly heterodox interpretation in Marxism, although it might not have been particularly embraced by the late Bill Warren and others.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
