imperialist profits

Michael Yates mikey+ at pitt.edu
Sun Jan 24 06:37:21 PST 1999


Mark,

Of course, one can always stop an argument by saying, well, there are plenty of persons worse off than you. I'm sure we could apply that to you or me or anyone. And I do not think that going from a Mexican ejido (communal farm) to a maquila is a net gain for a woman, though I am sure that the pre-Maquila position of these women is varied. And I am certain that everyone on these lists feels solidarity with maquila workers. But let's stick to debate and depersonalize things a bit. Whose life could not be subject to the most ruthless and vicious criticism? God, my three sons all dropped out of high school and took to drugs! What a rotten parent I must have been. We cannot know each other on the internet. So why try.

michael yates

Mark Jones wrote:
>
> Evidently sharecropping is a sensitive issue for American leftists, more so than the
> fate of hundreds of millions of workers in Latin America, Asia and the neocolonies
> generally. When Doug Henwood's open support of 3rd world capitalist regimes (which
> actually is what his constantly repeated suggestion that capitalism is in some sense
> beneficial in the neocolonial peripheries, amounts to) is not a subject for criticism,
> but a relatively innocuous rejoinder becomes the occasion or excuse for his copping out
> of the debate, and for a great deal of barracking, I'm bound to wonder about the
> complacency and hypocrisy of those capable of such attitudinising. Believe me, if I'd
> thought that the idea that he'd find excuses for sharecropping was such a whiz-bang
> criticism, I'd have made it long ago. However, I can;t help feeling that despite my
> best efforts to cause Henwood a little embarrassment, his discomfort this Sunday
> morning is still somewhat less than those of the women sweating in the maquiladoras.
>
> Mark Jones
> PS I'm taking a vow of silence on the subject of Henwood, so stop provoking me.
>
> Michael Yates wrote:
>
> > Friends,
> >
> > I have a thick skin, so I don't much care what people say to me. But if
> > someone said to me what Mark Jones said to Doug Henwood (I.e that I'd
> > tell black people that sharecropping was progressive...), he or she had
> > better hope that they were a lot bigger than me. Those are fighting
> > words and do not put the struggle forward one bit. They just lead to
> > sectarianism, splits , etc. Mark, to paraphrase what was said to Dan
> > Quayle in the vice-presidential debate in 1992, "you're no Karl Marx."
> >
> > michael yates
> >
> > Mark Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > Leave the room, lose the argument (old trade union saying). I'm not impressed by
> > > Doug Henwood quitting. It's not just the Marxism list he's leaving. I'll be
> > > interested to see his next career moves.
> > >
> > > As for the maquiladoras, the only good thing about them will be if the
> > > concentration of large numbers of workers in factories, does make it possible to
> > > organise them. The idea that setting up sweatshops in the 3rd world has intrinsic
> > > benefits -- that capitalism has a 'good side' and this is the 'complexity' we
> > > have to understand -- is bullshit. It's a cop-out. It's class betrayal. It's
> > > utter political cynicism. Treachery pure and simple. And it's theoretically
> > > vacuous. Should we not tell this to Doug Henwood or anyone else because it hurts
> > > his feelings and might lead to split?
> > >
> > > Mark Jones
> > >
> > > Doug Henwood wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mark Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Let's face it, if Doug Henwood had been a 'progressive' journalist 100 years
> > > > >ago he'd have been selling sharecropping to southern blacks as a good
> > > > >thing and
> > > > >a step up.
> > > >
> > > > Fuck you, Mark. I'm outta here.
> > > >
> > > > Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list