Re: Re: labour aristocracy

[DMS <dmschanoes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm forced to use this web based mail due to technical problems.
The last time I did this, the format exceeded 72 characters across,for some 
unknown reason.  If that happens again I apologize:

Regarding the labor aristocracy and imperialism:  I think Tom
knows what he is talking about.  Every year the WSJ (and I'm
sure other sources also) publishes a breakdown of US Corporate
Overseas Investment.  The breakdown  concentrates on
foreign direct investments made in corporations (domestic or foreign) outside 
the US.


The greatest proportion of such US investments are made in the
advanced countries (Western Europe and Canada).  Despite the
huge increases in foreign direct investment in China, the
developed economies are still the focus of investment, and
profit.


Now one of the demarcations, supposedly, between capitalism and
 imperialism, a critical distinction, is the supposed
transformation of exports from the metropolitan sectors-- once goods, now 
capital.  This sounds intriguing but it isn't really very helpful, since goods 
are commodities and exported as
capital, and finance capital that is exported is exported for
the same purpose-- to facilitate the extraction of profit
through the exchange of commodities.  Moreover, the "export of
capital," isn't all that new.  Analysis of the history of the
 development of US railroad quickly reveals the vital role
played by British fincance capital (and US govt subsidy, and
fraud, theft, and default).  And an examination of the railroads
 in Cuba (165th anniversary was celebrated last November) makes
it clear that not one mile of track could have been built
 without British financing.


 The financial flows that bind the less developed world to the
 advanced capitalist centers are not hedge funds, currency
swaps,or financial instruments divorced from the need/function of money as 
capital. Has this financial leverage increased
massively in scale? Absolutely.  Yet,it does not change the
terms of exchange and production and thus cannot change the
 terms of struggle.


If we talk about the advantage one sector of the working class
has over another, all we are really discussing is the different levels and 
histories of capital's (and capitals') development.


To call that privilege; to misuse that to argue that a class'
interests are golden chained to capital; to propose a "new" Main
 contradiction, is just another variant of commodity fetishism,
 with the commodity this time being labor power itself.


dms


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.