"Devine, James" wrote: > > so far, the Bushwhackers have succeeded in steering most of the benefits of > empire in the direction of their fraction of the capitalists, while costs are > borne by the vast majority. In the longer run, that may not be true.
I think the costs and benefits of empire (pre-capitalist as well as capitalist) have almost always been allocated in rather twisted ways. I think a good argument can be made that during the entire span of English occupation of India, it cost more to control India than _England as a whole_ got out of India. The beneficiaries were (a) a sector of big capital and (b) the civil service which ran both India _and_ England in the service of capital. The costs came out of the British working class. Carrol
