Post by maoista on Feb 10, 2004 20:45:13 GMT -5
b. Relative deprivation
Various bourgeois social-scientists claim that Marx's labor theory of
value is incorrect. Most simply are unaware of it in any meaningful way.
Nonetheless, there is a sociology discourse claiming that Marx's ideas of
"absolute deprivation" are incorrect, because supposedly absolute
immiseration of the proletariat has not happened under capitalism since
Marx's time.
MIM does not agree with this thesis. The Third World proletariat has been
increasingly exploited. Life expectancies have improved over feudalism. We
cannot deny that, but Marx never did deny that capitalism represented
progress over feudalism. The question is what happens within capitalist
society. We agree that the conditions of those workers bought off by
imperialism and turned into a labor aristocracy have improved, but for the
world's majority, imperialism has brought absolute immiseration.
We hold that Marx's absolute immiseration theory holds true to this day
with regard to life under capitalism. We point to three facts alone that
justify it, the first two of which are rooted in the anarchy of production
under capitalism created by intra-bourgeois competition. One is the
continued and incremental destruction of the environment that only becomes
more thorough the more technology advances under capitalism. Such
destruction is mitigated only by the class struggle to put the workers'
health interests into account in the design of production processes. Two,
we point to modern militarism which threatens more people and kills more
people than ever before. Thirdly, the greater wealth of imperialist
societies and their modernization of social control means higher
percentages of people in prison and psychiatric wards, higher than at any
time in previous history. It all boils down to killing and wasting of
humyn life.
To avoid talking about militarism, the environment and prison, the
bourgeois social scientists talk about "relative deprivation," in which
having one VCR is a disadvantage if your neighbor has two. Obviously this
is a backward concept in many regards as far as we Marxists are concerned.
It is not fundamental to our political economy analysis.
Genocide is a matter of absolute immiseration. There can be nothing worse.
In contrast, the fact that the internal semi-colonies have stunted upper
ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie is a matter of relative
deprivation.
Knowledge of relative oppression helps us form an understanding of what we
Marxists call "the particularities" of our material conditions. When
comparing Euro-Amerikans with oppressed nations, we can often show that
oppressed nations are in a relatively poor position. Such is important for
reasons ranging from the united front to why national consciousness arises
to why separate nation vanguard parties may be necessary until we reach
higher stages of humyn development.
Various bourgeois social-scientists claim that Marx's labor theory of
value is incorrect. Most simply are unaware of it in any meaningful way.
Nonetheless, there is a sociology discourse claiming that Marx's ideas of
"absolute deprivation" are incorrect, because supposedly absolute
immiseration of the proletariat has not happened under capitalism since
Marx's time.
MIM does not agree with this thesis. The Third World proletariat has been
increasingly exploited. Life expectancies have improved over feudalism. We
cannot deny that, but Marx never did deny that capitalism represented
progress over feudalism. The question is what happens within capitalist
society. We agree that the conditions of those workers bought off by
imperialism and turned into a labor aristocracy have improved, but for the
world's majority, imperialism has brought absolute immiseration.
We hold that Marx's absolute immiseration theory holds true to this day
with regard to life under capitalism. We point to three facts alone that
justify it, the first two of which are rooted in the anarchy of production
under capitalism created by intra-bourgeois competition. One is the
continued and incremental destruction of the environment that only becomes
more thorough the more technology advances under capitalism. Such
destruction is mitigated only by the class struggle to put the workers'
health interests into account in the design of production processes. Two,
we point to modern militarism which threatens more people and kills more
people than ever before. Thirdly, the greater wealth of imperialist
societies and their modernization of social control means higher
percentages of people in prison and psychiatric wards, higher than at any
time in previous history. It all boils down to killing and wasting of
humyn life.
To avoid talking about militarism, the environment and prison, the
bourgeois social scientists talk about "relative deprivation," in which
having one VCR is a disadvantage if your neighbor has two. Obviously this
is a backward concept in many regards as far as we Marxists are concerned.
It is not fundamental to our political economy analysis.
Genocide is a matter of absolute immiseration. There can be nothing worse.
In contrast, the fact that the internal semi-colonies have stunted upper
ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie is a matter of relative
deprivation.
Knowledge of relative oppression helps us form an understanding of what we
Marxists call "the particularities" of our material conditions. When
comparing Euro-Amerikans with oppressed nations, we can often show that
oppressed nations are in a relatively poor position. Such is important for
reasons ranging from the united front to why national consciousness arises
to why separate nation vanguard parties may be necessary until we reach
higher stages of humyn development.