"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 ^^^^^^ CB: Based on historical experience, isn't it impossible to run a capitalist empire smoothly ? Capitalism must mean mass poverty, war and racism. Nobody has managed capitalism in a way that avoids these. Capitalism's fundamental contradictions are irresolvable within capitalism. Although, as we have said many times here, war crisis or economic crisis doesn't at all automatically translate into socialist revolution, capitalism cannot avoid severe crises. As Carrol mentions, good class management from the standpoint of the capitalists means dumping the crisis on working people;or as Jim D. implied, even dumping it on other capitalists than your own. The latter would seem to be a lacking in ruling class consciousness actually. To the extent that the Bush policies are against the interests of a large section of the capitalists, they may indicate a significant division in the ruling class, and thereby a new formation of interimperialist conflict. However, we would have to have greater class-conscious organization in the working class if we are to take strategic advantage of such a hypothetical division among capitalists.
