Re:Social Imperialism (Reply to dms)/Horrible concept

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 9/30/03 2:43:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:


The US had enclosed within its own borders its own third world with
characteristic formally unfree and racialized forms of exploitation.
As Evelyn Nakano Glenn shows these workers enjoyed neither freedom of
contract nor citzenship: they were of another world.  19th US was an
empire on to itself even before one considers formally recognized
colonies. So... does Barioch consider the seizure by the Northern
industrial class of land and the labor of tens of millions of
super-exploited racialized proletarians in the American South and
Southwest? If not, the above claim seems meaningless.And in the case
of India, does Bairoch know of, much less refute, the work of Amiya
Baghci, Hamza Alavi and Irfan Habib?

Rakesh


Reply

Very confusing statement loaded with the political conceptions and ideology
of the "radical" bourgeoisie of the era of political antagonism between the
Soviet State and USNA imperialism (roughly 1950-1980). There never existed a
"third way" or "Third World" and the issue reduces itself to property relations
and the curve of industrial development. Today this is obvious.

The state of the United States of North America is a multi-national state. It
is the basic organ of violence and repression in the hands of the
Anglo-American imperialist bourgeoisie. The word multi-national state by 
definition means
more than one historically evolved peoples.

Today the world is undergoing social revolution, as the advanced centers of
world capital leave the industrial epoch. This is a qualitatively different
configuration of society than during the time of Lenin. The relative privilege 
of
a vast segment of the working class in the North - not simply the Anglo
American people, is under assault and unraveling as the revolution in technology
drives value - the socially necessary amount of labor embodied in commodities,
towards zero. We have entered a different era and to speak in concepts of the
industrial era is useless.

In our history the Northern industrial class and its political
representatives, along with Wall Street financial and industrial capital, did 
not seize "the
labor of tens of millions of super-exploited racialized proletarians in the
American South and Southwest?"

What actually occurred, as the result of the Civil War in America is that the
political, social and economic entity defining plantation slavery, it ruling
and laboring class, became subject to the political and economic domination by
the North. In other words of the eleven million sharecroppers roughly 6
million were white. These Southern white people of the plantation area are also
Anglo-American, but historically different than the Anglo American people of the
North.

The primary base of culture of the Anglo American people of the plantation
area is and has always been and remains Anglo-European, heavy doses of the
Native Bands as everything revolved around the slave class. The slave class of 
the
plantation area was drawn from a variety peoples in Africa or different ethnic
groups. This difference that is expressed as culture distinctive is
historically called being "Southern" in the American Union.

The primary base of culture in the North was English and the various waves of
European immigrants would later evolved into - not Anglo-Europeans, but Anglo
Americans. To this very day it takes the "European immigrant" a generation of
two for assimilation of that, which is Anglo American.

The mechanics of the plantation system and later sharecropping as it existed
within the system of commodity production made it impossible to super-exploit
the black sharecropper without super exploiting the six million white
sharecroppers, although there existed degrees of super exploitation and social
privileges given to the Southern Anglo American. In Northern literature (most
recently the movie "Monster Ball") the Southern Anglo American is presented as 
the
jailer of the black. What is not understood is that the jailer lives his life in
prison. In other words the concept of a super exploited racialized
proletariat is wrong, because it mask the actual social relationship.

(Note: I love looking at Halley Berry - all of her, :-) but her portrayal as
a Southern Bell, pardon - Belle, was awful. Her accent and body language was
all wrong. "Dat girl ain't southin!)

Although I occasionally use the term "white workers" - not often, it is not
an accurate term and concept and cause more confusion than clarity. What thirty
years ago was called "white skin privilege" obscure the actual colonial
relations that makes USNA imperialism - imperialism. The Anglo-American people 
as a
people, especially in the North enjoy privileges over the African American
people and everyone else on earth, including the English. And I do mean earth
and some of this is extended to the African American by the law of residency.
Everyone in England will know who I am the minute I open my mutherfucking mouth.

The question of the Southwest is posed somewhat different from the question
of the old plantation South and the border region that is called the "South as
a region."

All the workers of the North - Anglo American nation, or as Southerners call
us (and the Anglo-American people of Canada) Yankees, have enjoyed a historic
bribery in relationship to the workers of the Deep South. This also includes
the African American people of the industrial North. Here is the danger of the
concept, "racialized proletariat."

Here is why the communist workers cling to the Marxism conception of the
national colonial question and reject race theory.  The African American people 
of
the North are "bribed" or privileged in relationship to the African American
people of the old plantation areas, due simply to the law of residency in the
imperial center. How can one not understand this? The workers in Russia were
privileged in relationship to the workers in the Ukraine or Georgia; the
English in relationship to the Irish and most certain the Japanese in 
relationship
to the Korean. Deploying the use of the term "bribery" and "bourgeoisfied"
describes a relationship between those residing in the imperial centers and 
those
outside the center as well as between oppressing and oppressed peoples.

Hen there is of course the existence of the labor aristocracy primarily
within the labor unions of the North. This strata or layer of workers is 
different
from the workers that they represent and are most certainly bourgeoisfied. If
they were not "bourgeois" and stanch proletarian Marxist militants they still
could not shatter the bond of capital, because the primary classes that make
up a system of social production are never free to overthrow it. This issue
involves theory.


Melvin P.


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