From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 19:41:08 EST
Here's the second issue, Cyrus (and others): > But the concept of global 'social capital' belongs to the fully >globalized industries. This does not necessarily contradicts my argument > the formation of rate of exploitation at the social capital within the > national entities. Let me repeat again: I do not object to any empirical > research. My objection is to the assertion that individualizes Marx's > rate of exploitation (i.e., an exploitation that is having to do with a > particular norm of labor appropriation and associates with particular > socially necessary abstract labor in capitalism) for individual capital by > way of decomposition whatever it may be constructed. This bring us to the > notion of 'labor aristocracy' and erroneous attribution of exploitation to > it, rather than identifying it as a another category of bourgeois control > and oppression. Why does a notion of labor aristocracy necessarily lead us to the "erroneous attribution of exploitation" to a labor aristocracy? I don't see how it does. The concept of a labor aristocracy, which is linked to some theories of imperialism, is a component of a much more concrete level of analysis (concrete conjunctural, or epochal, class analysis) which does not attribute exploitation to a labor aristocracy but rather suggests that there is a segment of the working-class in the imperialist nations that materially benefits by the reality of imperial exploitation and plunder. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 20 2004 - 00:00:01 EST