However, the difference is also that the peasant in many of these places might have their own means of production and be able to survive in a very basic way outside the capitalist system: if they are forced into it with the promise that their life will be improved it seems reasonable to expect that promise to be kept on some level. If they still have to work 14 hours a day in order to scrape by, why does it make a difference that they are doing it in a modern factory owned by a foreign company or subcontractor or toiling away on the family farm. Is it such a stretch to see these as similar? I'm all for praising the benefits of so-called modernity, but it is hardly only alienated urbanites who resist it and realize it is often a mixed bag.
s
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 06:31, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 11:15 PM, 123hop at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Why is it bad to be a peasant? Why is it so much better to be an assembly
> line worker?
>
> I think a lot of people prefer being a factory worker to being a peasant.
> The people who prefer peasantry tend to be alienated urbanites.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>