Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 09:45:32 -0400
From: Louis Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Ned Ludd



Heartfield:

>Louis might be surprised to see that Living Marxism has written so
>extensively on the actual role of imperialism in destroying people's
>lives, given the prior discussion about material improvement. But that
>is because he does not understand that Marx's theory of capitalist
>domination is not one of unremitting impoverishment, but of the
>increasing social domination of capital.
>

Yes, and once again I maintain that despite the articles on Zapatistas,
etc., the notion that unremitting impoverishment is not the norm for Latin
America, Africa and Asia is ridiculous. I have challenged you to apply your
methodology to Congo, Mexico or the Philippines and you referred me to back
issues of your rag. I have examined back issues of your rag and have also
referred other people to as well.

The point is that you don't have a Marxist analysis of the neo-colonial
world. What you have done is taken the model set forward in Capital and
applied it undialectically to developing countries in the twentieth
century. This denies the most fundamental realities of these countries.
They are dominated by *foreign capital*.

When you refer to the "increasing social domination of capital", you ellide
the most fundamental fact that is of interest to Marxists. It is western or
Japanese capital that is doing the domination. Industrialization, as brutal
as it was, in the period described by Engels in "Conditions of the Working
Class in England" was producing capital that was being reinvested in
England. That is not the case in countries like the Congo or Nigeria. The
fundamental reality is foreign super-exploitation that leaves the country
stripped of its resources and dependent on foreign corporations. All of
these countries are deep in debt and are being forced into slashing social
programs to make them "credit-worthy".

Another important thing to keep in mind is that most of the Third World is
a source of raw materials and agricultural goods. In the twentieth century
there has been a long-term drop in the prices of such goods and a
corresponding rise in the prices of manufactured goods. This adds up to
UNREMITTING IMPOVERISHMENT, to use your own words. The few instances where
this has been resisted, it has been under the impact of revolutionary
regimes that have tried to break the cycle of dependency. This means
ANTI-CAPITALIST measures of one sort or another. The domination of foreign
capital has been very hard to resist and the social gains of the Chinese,
Cuban and Russian revolution are being overturned as capitalist property
relations are propagated in these countries.

I understand that your sect-cult has its origin in the Tony Cliff current.
My experience with British Trotskyism and "State Capitalism" has taught me
one thing. This current and its spawn are about as clueless to the class
realities of places like Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Mexico as it
is possible to be. When you take the traditional insular mentality of the
British left and fuse it with the workerist arrogance of the Trotskyist
tradition, you end up with an underdeveloped understanding of the
underdeveloped countries.

Louis Proyect





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---