Classes and the Organization and Relations of Production

[DancingLarry]

All materialist leftists agree that the prevailing social systems of an era are defined by the prevailing classes, which themselves emerge from the character and relations of production of that era. The classes and relations of production that have defined despotism, feudalism, mercantilism and capitalism have been sharply and distinctively different. Still, each succeeding era and social system has resulted from an extended, organic development that slowly over time alters the class character of society. Certainly there come punctuating moments of social upheaval, but those are usually a form of legal and political ratification of the social and economic changes which by those moments have been rather fully developed.

The question that has been plaguing me for some time is how do we recognize and define what is happening in those periods of organic change. After all, new classes don't emerge out of nothing, but out of existing classes that played a role in the earlier system's relations of production. Taking the bourgeoisie for example: the modern Euro bourgeoisie didn't spring fully formed capitalists from the head of Zeus, but rather emerged from preexisting classes of traders and artisans that had a different role and place in the relations and organization of production in feudal and mercantile systems. How would we, living in those times, have recognized the incremental changes that gave rise to this new class? When did it go from being quantitative changes in the organization of production to a qualitative change in the character and relations of production?

This I find to be a central inescapable question in our time, simply from what I've seen in my lifetime. I grew up in an America crammed to the gills with the sort of large-scale industrial manufacturing that classically produced an industrial proletariat, that socialized by that mode and those relations of production found itself not only inherently in class conflict with the bourgeois owners of those means of production, but socialized by the common experience of being herded together in large-scale industry into their own class consciousness, however mixed with other identities. My early working life took place in those old-style factories, making shoes and felt, or turning big pieces of sheet metal into small pieces of sheet metal. but those forms of organization of production have almost completely vanished within just my own adult lifetime, and I'm not even fully old yet. Instead of that old industrial proletariat, around whom almost all revolutionary socialist doctrine was shaped, but which ha now almost entirely disappeared, we have an entirely different sort of organization of "production" (to the degree work like retail sales, teaching, services, etc can even be called "production"). When do these changes in the organization and modes of production cause a change substantive enough to lead to redefining of the relations of production, and the emergence of new classes? How would we recognize that critical shift?

[Niccolò Rossi]

All materialist leftists agree that the prevailing social systems of an era are defined by the prevailing classes, which themselves emerge from the character and relations of production of that era.

I'm not sure here what you mean by the word 'social system', how it is defined by the prevailing class relations and how it is distinct from the 'mode of production' itself.

Either way this is a point in passing.


The classes and relations of production that have defined despotism, feudalism, mercantilism and capitalism have been sharply and distinctively different.On the contrary I don't think we can identify mercantilism as being 'sharply and distinctively different' from capitalism proper. I think mercantilism can be more correctly identified as the foundations of the capitalist economy proper developing within a still dominantly feudal and petty-commodity producing economy.


Still, each succeeding era and social system has resulted from an extended, organic development that slowly over time alters the class character of society. Certainly there come punctuating moments of social upheaval, but those are usually a form of legal and political ratification of the social and economic changes which by those moments have been rather fully developed.This is a thoroughly correct and important point you make here. One thing I think however needs to be said here is on this phenomenon and its applicability to the capitalist mode of production. Capitalism unlike all prior modes of production is unique in that the revolutionary class, the bearer of the new social relations which are to supersede capitalism is an exploited class defined precisely by its lack of property and its inability to develop the relations of production unique to it as a class (socialism as the negation of capitalism, all private property and exploitation cannot grow up within the shell of the old system).


How would we, living in those times, have recognized the incremental changes that gave rise to this new class? When did it go from being quantitative changes in the organization of production to a qualitative change in the character and relations of production?I'd be interested to hear what others have to say with regard to this question. For my part I would recommend the article "Ascent and decline in previous modes of production (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/135/ascent-and-decline-of-societies)" (IR 135, October 2008) which I think despite not explicitly answering your question regarding 'where is the turning point' is broadly relevant to the discussion on the transition of modes of production and the rise of new classes and relations of production.


Instead of that old industrial proletariat, around whom almost all revolutionary socialist doctrine was shaped, but which ha now almost entirely disappeared, we have an entirely different sort of organization of "production" (to the degree work like retail sales, teaching, services, etc can even be called "production"). When do these changes in the organization and modes of production cause a change substantive enough to lead to redefining of the relations of production, and the emergence of new classes? How would we recognize that critical shift?Something I mentioned to Beltov yesterday in the "Decadence of Capitalism" discussion group, whilst I think that de-industrialisation has had a very profound impact on the identity of the working class in the first world and its ability to struggle as a class, the proletariat has not and is not disappearing in the first world in this sense (ie. the proletariat has been 'bourgeois-fied'). I think question of how do realise if a turning point has been reached and a qualitative change has occurred isn't at all applicable today, not only due to the specificities of capitalism itself (the decadence of capitalism does not engender new class and relations of production within itself which are to supersede it), but because I don't think there is even a quantative change that can be discerned or any form of profound organisational shift that would imply this possibility.

[ckaihatsu]

On the contrary I don't think we can identify mercantilism as being 'sharply and distinctively different' from capitalism proper. I think mercantilism can be more correctly identified as the foundations of the capitalist economy proper developing within a still dominantly feudal and petty-commodity producing economy.


The difference is in the composition of the capital, and in its management -- is the * nation-state * providing and managing the capital, or is it a collective of * private owners * of capital (perhaps under some constraints from the nation-state) -- ?





[M]ercantilism was not a mistake, but rather the best possible system for those who developed it. [M]ercantilist policies were developed and enforced by rent-seeking merchants and governments. Merchants benefited greatly from the enforced monopolies, bans on foreign competition, and poverty of the workers. Governments benefited from the high tariffs and payments from the merchants. Whereas later economic ideas were often developed by academics and philosophers, almost all mercantilist writers were merchants or government officials.[12]

[...]

Mercantilism developed at a time when the European economy was in transition. Isolated feudal estates were being replaced by centralized nation-states as the focus of power. Technological changes in shipping and the growth of urban centers led to a rapid increase in international trade.[13] Mercantilism focused on how this trade could best aid the states. Another important change was the introduction of double-entry bookkeeping and modern accounting. This accounting made extremely clear the inflow and outflow of trade, contributing to the close scrutiny given to the balance of trade.[14] Of course, the impact of the discovery of America cannot be ignored. New markets and new mines propelled foreign trade to previously inconceivable heights. The latter led to “the great upward movement in prices” and an increase in “the volume of merchant activity itself.”[15]

Prior to mercantilism, the most important economic work done in Europe was by the medieval scholastic theorists. The goal of these thinkers was to find an economic system that was compatible with Christian doctrines of piety and justice. They focused mainly on microeconomics and local exchanges between individuals. Mercantilism was closely aligned with the other theories and ideas that were replacing the medieval worldview. This period saw the adoption of the very Machiavellian realpolitik and the primacy of the raison d'état in international relations. The mercantilist idea that all trade was a zero sum game, in which each side was trying to best the other in a ruthless competition, was integrated into the works of Thomas Hobbes. The dark view of human nature also fit well with the Puritan view of the world, and some of the most stridently mercantilist legislation, such as the Navigation Acts, were enacted by the government of Oliver Cromwell.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism





The East India Company (of England, later of the United Kingdom), sometimes referred to as "John Company", was one of the more famous joint-stock companies. It was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600, with the intention of favouring trade privileges in India. The Royal Charter effectively gave the newly created Honourable East India Company (HEIC) a 21 year monopoly on all trade in the East Indies. The Company transformed from a commercial trading venture to one that virtually ruled India as it acquired auxiliary governmental and military functions, until its dissolution.
The East India Company's flag initially had the flag of England, the St. George's Cross in the corner.

Soon afterwards in 1602, the Dutch East India Company issued shares on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange.

During the period of colonialism, the joint stock company Europeans, initially the British, trading with the Near East for goods, pepper and calico for example, enjoyed spreading the risk of trade over multiple sea voyages. The joint stock company became a more viable financial structure than previous guilds or state regulated companies. The first joint-stock companies to be implemented in the Americas were The Virginia Company and The Plymouth Company.

Transferable shares often earned positive returns on equity, which is evidenced by investment in companies like the British East India Company, which used the financing model to manage trade in India. Joint stock companies paid out divisions, dividends, to their shareholders by dividing up the profits of the voyage in the proportion of shares held. Divisions were usually cash, but when working capital was low and it was detrimental to the survival of the company, divisions were either postponed or paid out in remaining cargo which could be sold by shareholders for profit in the firehouse

It also made it affordable to support early colonists in America. Jamestown, for instance, was financed by the Virginia Company. It is because of joint stock companies that the colonization and settlement of America was made possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_stock_company





I think question of how do realise if a turning point has been reached and a qualitative change has occurred isn't at all applicable today, not only due to the specificities of capitalism itself (the decadence of capitalism does not engender new class and relations of production within itself which are to supersede it), but because I don't think there is even a quantative change that can be discerned or any form of profound organisational shift that would imply this possibility.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Village


Wikipedia doesn't have an entry for this, but I'd like to put forward a meaning for 'Global Village (political)', which would be:

"Welcome to neo-feudalism, the colonization of the entire globe. You're fucked into substandard employment and insufficient income no matter where you live. You will be stuck in the same location, from cradle to grave, almost as much as the serfs of feudalism were, despite all the awesome transportation lying around, now well out of *your* reach, plebe.

Of course you're being watched and dominated over, but, instead of it being from a singular local asshole from the nobility it now could be anyone from a shifting tableau of globally networked assholes on different work shifts.

A large portion of your crops-- I mean wages, must be forked over through taxes to pay for the simple upkeep of a state of society that hasn't changed in generations. Enjoy the technically-upgraded-but-same-ol'-same-ol' bread-and-circuses -- it's good enough for the likes of you and your kind, prole.

Don't even bother to bother the upper crust with your imagined woes -- the rich and famous are enjoying lifestyles that even Robin Leach will never be privy to, so don't even * think * about disturbing them -- that's an offense that's punishable with jail time.

Remember, it takes a village to raise a child, so you'd better get on that right away!"





Neofeudalism literally means "new feudalism" and implies a contemporary rebirth of policies of governance and economy reminiscent of those present in many pre-industrial feudal societies. The concept is one in which government policies are instituted with the effect (deliberate or otherwise) of systematically increasing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor while increasing the power of the rich and decreasing the power of the poor (also see wealth condensation). This effect is considered to be similar to the effects of traditional feudalism. The definition of the term is disputed and can be loosely employed as a pejorative term to attack political opponents.

[...]

General

Feudalism is a political system of power dispersed and balanced between king and nobles. This system refers to a general set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility of Europe during the Middle Ages, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.

Among the issues claimed to be associated with the idea of neofeudalism in contemporary society are class stratification, globalization, mass immigration/illegal immigration, open borders policies, multinational corporations, and "neo-corporatism."[1]

Neofeudalism is part of the controversy over income redistribution born out of massive societal shifts during the industrial revolution. At the time the issue was wealth disparity between classes, landholders, entrepreneurs, peasants, workers, and other economic and social groups. Neofeudalism encompasses the current debate over globalization to include entire societies, countries, regions ("North" versus "South," "Western" versus "non-Western"), and supra-national non-state actors. Unlike other geopolitical issues such as environmentalism and security, the concept of "neofeudalism" largely focuses on economics.

In a proposed party-neutral definition of the term, the traits ascribed to a theoretical emerging neofeudalism would not belong to one political party alone but would be emergent throughout the whole political system in all or at least several major parties. This definition describes a version of neofeudalism with its origin squarely in the realm of business interests and the interests of business owners actively advancing agendas that benefit them personally through political action committees and lobbying efforts directed at politicians not in one, but in every political party. This is a version of the "accidental" or unintentional definition of neofeudalism and describes it as the projected result of rich individuals using their wealth and connections in legal ways to influence politics strongly to their personal advantage over a period of time. In this party-neutral definition there is no cabal or secret society deliberately guiding national politics, but rather the sum effect of the pressures put on politics by the wealthy and elite can be described as moving towards a sort of "new feudalism."

Feudal systems in antique societies usually had the common feature of being ruled by an extremely wealthy and powerful upper class (nobles and aristocrats) with nearly complete legal power over the lives and well-being of the impoverished lower classes of laborers, craftsmen, service professionals, farmer workers, and bond-servants (individuals with debts so excessive that their only legal options were debtor's prison, life as homeless "outlaws," or service to the upper class as serfs or houseservants). The feudal upper classes were not subject to the same set of laws as the lower classes. Thus one of the basic criteria for categorizing a society feudalistic or neofeudalistic might be simply that its laws and customs are designed to best serve the landed and wealthy while offering substantially lesser legal protections to the landless and working classes and those in debt. Such a system need not evolve out of any deliberate desire to oppress the working classes but rather may arise simply through a process of gradually changing the legal systems of a country to best serve the common interests of the upper classes (i.e. less taxation on unearned incomes and interest, more privileges for the wealthy than for the working class or landless, lighter penalties for committing "white collar" crimes, right to purchase expensive exemptions from wartime drafts, etc.). Recognition of similarities between such ancient social systems and a given current society is the condition most likely to lead to accusations of neofeudalism, regardless of the ongoing controversy over what actually constitutes neofeudalism.

One rebuff to application of the term neofeudalism in the contemporary political setting is that such historical feudalism maintained caste without consideration of capital, where commoners who accumulated capital could at best elevate their rank to that of merchants, and class gaps of aristocracy were unbreachable even by private wealth until the late stages and breakdown of feudalism. To that extent, the labeling of monopoly capitalism as neofeudalism can be seen as a misnomer. Others would argue, however, that the prefix "neo" is meant to distinguish modern feudalism from the old kind and that use of the term only means that it mimics many of the effects of the old feudalism: an entrenched, fabulously wealthy elite, held in place by low taxes on capital and no taxes on estates; and a large and growing class of uneducated, unskilled labor brought in by unchecked immigration (both legal and illegal), and kept in check by high levels of personal debt, and high taxes on earned income (payroll, income, sales, property, etc.)

Another specific and alternative application of the term neofeudalism alleges that corporate and government policies make workers dependent on the corporations, as well as making the economic power of the corporations greater than the power of national governments. This, detractors say, leads to a situation where workers are dependent on private interests that are more powerful than government, resembling the situation that prevailed during historic feudalism. Although it should be noted that in feudal law localized prerogatives were considered government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofeudalism


Chris






--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[AvanteRedGarde]

There is very little production that actually takes place in the U.S. Most U.S. workers are in the tertiary and other unproductive sectors. Most U.S. workers are not exploited, but rather a petty class of exploiters whom relate to the exploited productive workers of the world via finance capital, i.e. imperialism.

Does that answer your question?

[DancingLarry]

There is very little production that actually takes place in the U.S. Most U.S. workers are in the tertiary and other unproductive sectors. Most U.S. workers are not exploited, but rather a petty class of exploiters whom relate to the exploited productive workers of the world via finance capital, i.e. imperialism.

Does that answer your question?

I wouldn't say it's a complete answer to the question, but it certainly addresses it and I think accurately describes one element of the disintegration of the American proletariat. That of course is the first of the set of questions I'm raising here, what's happening to the American working class? I think you accurately describe part of this process, that there's a segment of the former American working class that is becoming something of a global free-rider element, highly parasitical. Because of where I come from, what I've seen over the years, I know by personal experience and the experience of my family, friends, neighbors that large chunks of the former American proletariat are NOT enjoying that kind of privileged status, but have seen relentless and steady declines i their economic security and standard of living in tandem with deindustrialization.

Deindustrialization came early to my home town. It really started right after WWII, and by the 60s, while most of the nation was enjoying the high point of US postwar prosperity, deindustrialization and economic decline were battering us. Those who could afford to get away did, and I think that those who did make their escape represent the element from my town that fit the group you describe. In the 1950 census, the city's population was 70,000, and last count it's just over 40,000. Those stuck behind, who had nowhere to go or nothing to go anywhere with are living lives that hardly match the privileged free-rider pattern you describe. For those of us middle aged and older, to some degree we've been lumpenized. The younger generation are almost entirely employed in retail, and their economic and social conditions are quite precise examples of what the current European theorists call "precarity", probably more than any young Euro workers experience because US economy has always been more "precarious" in that technical sense, no "labor contracts" and so forth.

In the past 30 years I've seen the rest of America following the same path that my hometown did a couple decades ahead of the curve.This is why I'm raising these fundamental class-based questions, because something quite remarkable is happening. Is it really capitalism if there's no longer a meaningful industrial proletariat? Didn't we just say that a social order exists on the basis of the predominant classes? Can it still be the same system if one of the critical classes simply disappears? Is it capitalism at all any more, or is it something else, as yet undefined?

Further, as leftists, a revolutionaries, what are our tasks, how do we perform them, where do we look to organize and agitate if there is no proletariat? What is the social basis for opposition to the ruling class without the working class? I don't see how we avoid confronting these questions, some very fundamental to our entire revolutionary perspective, as the abolition of production in late capitalist societies goes forward.

[ckaihatsu]

For those of us middle aged and older, to some degree we've been lumpenized.


Yo, who you calling lumpen, Lumpen? = )

(Just keep in mind that as a revolutionary you're waaaaaay more deserving of whatever sharing you may get from your fellow proletarians than the money that's extorted from them / us for the capitalist infrastructure through taxes -- for the military, for capital gains tax breaks, etc.)





Is it really capitalism if there's no longer a meaningful industrial proletariat?


Of course not -- it's day care.

The *real* labor is going on in the Third World, where the stuff is being *manufactured* -- the First World service / sales force is just an afterthought, in economic terms -- in the First World either your money is working for you (petty capital) or you're working for your money.

Also consider that we've been in an existential state of relative idleness since we first overcame the competition for scavenging from the hyenas, wolves, and chimpanzees.

As Keanu Reeves -- my Hollywood counterpart x D -- would say (in The Matrix), "The rest is up to you."


x D


x D


8 |


= )

[ckaihatsu]

Oooop -- fergot:


Work is the curse of the drinking classes.

Oscar Wilde

[Niccolò Rossi]

There is very little production that actually takes place in the U.S.

What do you base this claim on?


Most U.S. workers are in the tertiary and other unproductive

In what sense is the tertiary sector unproductive?

More importantly however, why does this matter? A worker is a worker whether they are employed in productive or unproductive labour.


Most U.S. workers are not exploited, but rather a petty class of exploiters whom relate to the exploited productive workers of the world via finance capital, i.e. imperialism.

This is the most utterly reactionary and anti-working class poison. If you think the working class in the first world are 'parasites' I think this shows more about you than them - I think it shows very clearly you are not worker have no experience with the real workering class.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think you accurately describe part of this process, that there's a segment of the former American working class that is becoming something of a global free-rider element, highly parasitical.

In what sense do you really think this is the case? How is this occuring? Why is this occuring?

I don't think this is a real phenomenon at all in the sense ARG is suggesting. I think the idea is wholely bourgeois.


Because of where I come from, what I've seen over the years, I know by personal experience and the experience of my family, friends, neighbors that large chunks of the former American proletariat are NOT enjoying that kind of privileged status, but have seen relentless and steady declines i their economic security and standard of living in tandem with deindustrialization.

Deindustrialization came early to my home town. It really started right after WWII, and by the 60s, while most of the nation was enjoying the high point of US postwar prosperity, deindustrialization and economic decline were battering us. Those who could afford to get away did, and I think that those who did make their escape represent the element from my town that fit the group you describe. In the 1950 census, the city's population was 70,000, and last count it's just over 40,000. Those stuck behind, who had nowhere to go or nothing to go anywhere with are living lives that hardly match the privileged free-rider pattern you describe. For those of us middle aged and older, to some degree we've been lumpenized. The younger generation are almost entirely employed in retail, and their economic and social conditions are quite precise examples of what the current European theorists call "precarity", probably more than any young Euro workers experience because US economy has always been more "precarious" in that technical sense, no "labor contracts" and so forth.

This on the other hand (especially with regard to pauperisation and precarity of work) is something I think it undeniably true and profoundly significant, something that contrasts starkly with the rediculous and fanciful ideas of the 'labour aristocracy' as advocated by ARG.

Doesn't the above that you've written tell you something about the legitimacy of ARG's comments? If anything I think you're presenting a fantastic argument actually grounded in reality against the reactionary fantasy of the 'parasite first world'.


Is it really capitalism if there's no longer a meaningful industrial proletariat?

Of course, or does the proletariat not exist outside of industry? Besides, the industrial proletariat is not disappearing so much as it is being displaced (although capitalism has and is proving it's inability to sucessfully and legitimately integrate new workers particularly in the third world into wage labour)


Further, as leftists, a revolutionaries, what are our tasks, how do we perform them, where do we look to organize and agitate if there is no proletariat? What is the social basis for opposition to the ruling class without the working class?

For Maoists succh as ARG, the solution to these 'problems' is a flight to the third world and support for nationalist murder gangs (through the internet, naturally). However, this recourse isn't at all necessary and the significance formerly attached to these questions dissolves away when we realise that the proletariat does still exist and that capitalism still prevails today in dragging humanity ever deeper into barbarism.

However, the question of overcomming the 'identity crisis' of the working class and reforging a really unified and class wide struggle in the de-industrialised nations is a real one. Ultimately it is the proletariat alone who must solve, has proven it can solve and is solving this task for itself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder how much credibility the "Three Worlds" stuff would have had if Mao had a non-bourgeois "Bloc of Three Classes" and not the "Bloc of Four Classes" that we know of today.

[Bilan]

There is very little production that actually takes place in the U.S. Most U.S. workers are in the tertiary and other unproductive sectors. Most U.S. workers are not exploited, but rather a petty class of exploiters whom relate to the exploited productive workers of the world via finance capital, i.e. imperialism.

Does that answer your question?

Trolling is not an answer, no.

[DancingLarry]

Of course, or does the proletariat not exist outside of industry? Besides, the industrial proletariat is not disappearing so much as it is being displaced (although capitalism has and is proving it's inability to successfully and legitimately integrate new workers particularly in the third world into wage labour)


That's the kind of good question of definition, and redefinition, that I'm going for in posting this. Yes, I think there is a proletariat outside of industry, but that's not the way that leftists/revolutionaries tend to think. It's my perception (every bit as much here and now as in meat life and 30 years ago) that the opposite prevails, the basic assumptions carried forward from the heavy industrialization of the late 19th and early 20th century are the norm in coloring the discussions and approaches of leftists to working class agitation and capitalism itself. The socialists of those years gave us a hammer (and sickle) and to this day the prevailing tendency to see everything as a nail. Of course, that's not universal, for instance your posts make it clear you've given this matter some thought; but for much of the harder left, due to the reliance on the historic texts, the capitalist world seems to be frozen forever somewhere between 1848 and 1949. That's why I believe we need to have something of a "Great Leap Forward" (to swipe a term) in our theoretical outlook and understanding of the mechanisms of contemporary capitalism and the character and conditions of the post-industrial proletariat.

As far as capitalism simply displacing industrial production you'll get no quibble whatsoever from me there as to the big picture. However, I'm a leftist in the US, not Brazil or Vietnam, so I need to have ideas, information, theories and strategies for building a new movement among the industrially displaced.

That's where I get back to the idea of the socializing effect of the organization of production. Early in my work life I had the experience of walking to and from work the couple blocks from my neighborhood to the big old plant, along with dozens of others from my neighborhood walking from my neighborhood to that same plant. I don't have any way to convey what a difference there is between that experience and that of "rush hour" people not streaming together in the flesh but battling at cross-direction with each other encased and isolated in tons of steel and glass. I now beyond a shadow of a doubt it was in that experience that the seed of my class consciousness was planted. Now, I, somewhat uniquely, chose to nourish and develop that seed in a way I'm sure most of my neighbors/fellow workers never have, but that's where it came from. I strongly doubt I'd be the person I am today if my socialized experience of work had always been built around "rush hour". And it was the large, centralized industrial plant that made that experience possible.

"Rush hour" emphasizes, entrenches the alienation, isolation , even antagonism between working people that serves the bourgeois ideology of "individualism" perfectly. The dispersed, scattered character of work, the primary mode in the post-industrial societies reinforces this socialization, makes it even harder than ever for working people to see their mutual self-interests and the logic of solidarity.



However, the question of overcoming the 'identity crisis' of the working class and reforging a really unified and class wide struggle in the de-industrialised nations is a real one. Ultimately it is the proletariat alone who must solve, has proven it can solve and is solving this task for itself.


I appreciate your optimistic outlook on this, but at least among the American working people that are my circles, outside of a very small number I don't see that as of yet.

One more thing. Obviously ARG has a history, and a reputation, here of which I am unaware. However, what he had to say isn't entirely untrue. There are plenty of people today who 30 years ago would have been working in a plant making windshield wipers or radiator hoses, but today make a living selling Kias. That's what I (in my newbie-ness) took him to be talking about, and that's a real thing.

[Niccolò Rossi]

That's why I believe we need to have something of a "Great Leap Forward" (to swipe a term) in our theoretical outlook and understanding of the mechanisms of contemporary capitalism and the character and conditions of the post-industrial proletariat.

I would agree, though I think this is a very broad, vague and difficult to answer question. Ultimately, however, I think these questions will be answered by the class struggle itself, especially in the period of open economic crisis global capitalism now finds itself in.


However, I'm a leftist in the US, not Brazil or Vietnam, so I need to have ideas, information, theories and strategies for building a new movement among the industrially displaced.

Maybe we aught to be looking at the question itself and whether we are posing it the right way. What I mean by this is, maybe we* also need to re-examine, namely, the role of revolutionaries. What do we mean by 'build the movement'? Is this the role of revolutionaries?

I agree completely with your comments regarding the socialisation of production and the ability of the proletariat to reforge its own class identity, thanks for sharing them. The atomised nature of working class in the production process of post-industrial societies, along with the affects of unemployment aswell as the experiences of defeat in the class struggle in the 80's and all through the 90's is the real root of the problems now being considered in this discussion.


I appreciate your optimistic outlook on this, but at least among the American working people that are my circles, outside of a very small number I don't see that as of yet.

I think this point is arguable. I think we are seeing a clear resurgance in the class struggle even if still small and in a preliminary stage.

*I'll use this term here but I think there are difficulties with it, namely on who are 'we' and who are 'they'

EDIT: Here's some interesting snippets from some ICC article I think may relate to and contribute to the discussion:


“With this new stage in the deepening of the crisis conditions are ripening for a calling into question of some of the ideological barriers set up by the bourgeoisie during the previous years: that the working class no longer exists, that it is possible to improve living conditions and reform the system if only to benefit from a peaceful retirement -- everything that encouraged the workers to resign themselves to their fate. This brings with it a ripening of the conditions for the working class to recover its consciousness with a revolutionary perspective. The attacks unify the conditions for a working-class counter-attack at an ever wider level, beyond national boundaries. They are laying down the same warp and weft for more massive, more unified, and more radical struggles in the future.

“They constitute the yeast for a slow rising of the conditions for the massive struggles which will be necessary for the working class is to recover its identity. Little by little, they will tear down the illusions in the possibility of reforming the system. It is the action of the masses themselves which will make possible the re-emergence of the consciousness of being an exploited class that bears with it a different historical perspective for society. This being said, the road the working class must travel in order to assert its own revolutionary perspective is no motorway: it will be terribly long and difficult, strewn with pitfalls that its enemy will inevitably put in its path”

(ICC, Class struggles in France, spring 2003: the massive attacks of capital demand a mass response from the working class, IR 114, 2004)

“However, when it comes to grasping the dynamic of the movement towards a revolutionary outcome, it seems to us that Goldner draws some questionable conclusions from the consequences of the ‘deindustrialisation' which has dissipated many of the core industrial sectors of the working class in the advanced countries. It is certainly true this process has posed serious problems for the working class in terms of retaining and developing its sense of class identity; and it is also true, as Goldner points out, that that the bloating of unproductive and useless forms of economic activity over the past few decades means that it makes little sense for workers to simply take over a good proportion of the enterprises that function for capital today - many of them will have to be simply dismantled. But in the following passage, Goldner seems to be in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater:

“ "The old ‘imagination' of working-class revolution was a general strike or mass strike, occupation of the factories, establishment of workers' councils and soviets, the political overthrow of the capitalist class, and henceforth a direct democratic management of socialized production. This ‘imagination' was based on the experiences of the Russian, German, Spanish and Hungarian revolutions and revitalized by the American, British and French wildcat movement from the 1950's onward, the French May-June general strike of 1968, the Italian worker rebellion from 1969 to 1973, the worker rebellions in Portugal and Spain in the mid-1970's ‘transitions'...I think this model has lost touch with contemporary reality, at least in the West (in contrast to China and Vietnam) because capital-intensive technological development, downsizing and outsourcing have reduced the ‘immediate process of production' (the ‘volume I' reality of capitalism) to a relatively small part of the total work force (not to mention total population), and even the production workers who remain are often involved in making things (e.g. armaments) that would have no place in a society beyond capitalism. More contemporary workplaces would be abolished by a successful revolution than would be placed under ‘workers' control'."

“The problem with this is that too many different things are thrown together. In the first place, occupying the factories - regardless of whether they produce useful or noxious products - was never more than a tactic that could be used by the workers to take the revolution forward provided that the immediate ‘self-management' of production did not become a goal in itself, turning isolated occupations into a trap. By contrast, the dynamic of the mass strike, the formation of the workers' councils, and the political overthrow of the capitalist class remain crucial to any future revolutionary process. It is true that the forms taken by the mass strike and by the councils may well differ from those we have seen in previous revolutionary upsurges. Indeed recent massive upsurges - such as the anti-CPE movement in France in 2006 and the steelworkers' strikes in Vigo in Spain the same year - have given us some indication of how mass assemblies and council-type bodies may appear in the future. But despite the changes that have taken place (the Spanish steel workers, for example, used the form of the street assembly to bring together workers from smaller enterprises; in the anti-CPE movement the universities functioned as a nodal point for discussions that were open to other sectors of the class, and so on) the essential content underlying these forms remains the same as in 1905 or 1917. Goldner himself still refers to ‘soviets' when he talks about the bodies that will undertake the revolutionary transformation. The problem is that by sweepingly dismissing the ‘old model' rather than asking which elements of the class struggle remain constant and which more ephemeral, he leaves little point of connection between today's defensive struggles and the post-revolutionary stage when the social and economic transformation of the world can be posed in earnest. The list of measures in the final section thus appear somewhat abstract and separated from the ‘real movement'; and at the same time, there is actually little attempt in the text to draw out what can be learned from some of the recent experience self-organisation. No doubt the development of movements like the revolt of the young proletarians in Greece will provide much material for reflection about the forms and methods that the class struggle is going to adopt in the period ahead of us.”

(ICC, Reflections on Loren Goldner’s article The Biggest ‘October Surprise’ Of All: A World Capitalist Crash (http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2009/01/loren-goldner), ICCOnline, 2009)

Some of the comments left on this latter article online are of interest here, particularly this pair:



A very insightful critique of Goldner, but it would have been nice to hear more about what the ICC thinks about the effects of the de-industrialization Goldner mentions. The article says, " (it) is certainly true this process (de-industrialization) has posed serious problems for the working class in terms of retaining and developing its sense of class identity (...) What exactly does the ICC mean by this? What are the implications? Examples of de-industrialisation affecting class identity: the liquidation of the mining industry in Britain and the dispersal of the miners with their long traditions of struggle; the same for the car and steel industry, the docks, etc. Contrary to the dominant ideology, this doesn't mean the 'end of the working class' because the majority of those who worked in these sectors have to sell their labour power elsewhere or join the ranks of the unemployed, but they often have to work in more atomised sectors without the same traditions of struggle. Class identity has also been attacked ideologically over the past few decades with all the campaigns about the end of the working class so there is a real challenge posed for the 'reconstruction' of a class identity, which will come mainly through the revival of the class struggle, often in sectors less accustomed to collective action.

[DancingLarry]

Maybe we aught to be looking at the question itself and whether we are posing it the right way. What I mean by this is, maybe we* also need to re-examine, namely, the role of revolutionaries. What do we mean by 'build the movement'? Is this the role of revolutionaries?

*I'll use this term here but I think there are difficulties with it, namely on who are 'we' and who are 'they'



That's of course a very good point, and I actually hesitated before proceeding with that manner of presenting it. And the question of what and who are "revolutionaries", and what and why is "revolution" are every bit as open as the other questions of class we've been looking at here.

Thanks for the link to the ICC article, and I'm going to want to read that, and also the Goldner original. I'm glad to see that there is a growing body of discussion on these topics. I'm going to take some time to read and digest those before continuing with this, but I definitely consider this thread still very much alive!

[AvanteRedGarde]

Trolling is not an answer, no.

Dancy Larry posted a serious question, I posted a serious response.

You have said nothing relevant, or even tangential, to the topic at hand. By definition, you are the one trolling.

[AvanteRedGarde]

[Responding to Niccolò Rossi]

I should have better expressed what i said earlier. Very little is produced by Americans, especially relative to the size of the U.S. economy. Plenty of productive labor occurs within the U.S. (i.e. labor which alters the physical qualities of a commodity). However, much of this labor is done by people other than Americans. This included migrant fields workers and immigrant garment workers. In terms of America, child and prison labor is sometimes utilized, but in the latter a disproportionate number of people are from internally oppressed nations (i.e. black, indigenous, etc).


In what sense is the tertiary sector unproductive?

Read Capital vol 3. Value is produced at the points of productive labor, the full value of labor is not realized but until the final sale. Moreover, the industrial capitalist does not retain the full amount of surplus value, but passes on along to other sectors of the economy. This insures an average rate of profit.

The tertiary sector does not produce value, but is involved in the realization of value. An unproductive laborer is exploited, according to Marx, when the increased amount of value realized is more than the unproductive laborer receives in compensation.

(Think about drug dealing. An ounce of weed has a lower price than the same ounce sold as dime-bags. That's because there was extra labor was required to sell the ounce as individual dime bags as opposed to wholesale. The process of breaking an ounce into dimes and selling them simply involves the full realization of value, but doesn't neccesarily increase the amount of value of an ounce of weed.)

Keeping in might that Marx was speaking for the process of Capital accumulation as an aggregate, he wasn't considering situation when a minority of workers made 30 times the base.

Overall though, this is all pretty boiler plate Marx.


More importantly however, why does this matter? A worker is a worker whether they are employed in productive or unproductive labour.

Regarding why this specific fact is important, it is indicative of a certain level of parasitism on the part of the American economy. You simply can't have an economy based on selling things. Someone is making them, often at wages 30 times lower than those who are simply standing behind a cash register.

Moreover, "worker" is a really vague term. Is a cop a worker? A security guard? What about a bank teller? Under some vague eclectic bullshit leftist definition you are using, all three could be construed to be friends of the international proletariat-- friends of revolution. Obviously however, cops, security guards and your average bank teller have next to no revolutionary internationalist class consciousness. So all this fetishizing of 'workers' is plain dumb-- since 'workers' are obviously not a revolutionary vehicle.

What is important in the formation of revolutionary class conciousness however is one relation to capital and position within the process of capital accumulation, specifically whether one primarily beneifits under the current system or is buried underneath it. This idea stands in contraction to the throroughly vague and bankrupt (i.e. bullshit) notion as "workers" having some special revolutionary quality by virtue that they work.

[It just gets comical from here]



This is the most utterly reactionary and anti-working class poison. If you think the working class in the first world are 'parasites' I think this shows more about you than them -

What else do you call someone who lives at the expense of others?

"We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of Great Powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy."

Lenin, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism

Notice that Lenin descibes the entire process by which, "a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy," as Western parasitism.


I think it shows very clearly you are not worker have no experience with the real workering class.

This is an ad hominem fallacy. I could be a fucking fish and it wouldn't have a bearing on whether or not my arguments are correct or not.

[This next one is really funny when you consider the logical absurdity of it all]



However, the question of overcomming the 'identity crisis' of the working class and reforging a really unified and class wide struggle in the de-industrialised nations is a real one. Ultimately it is the proletariat alone who must solve, has proven it can solve and is solving this task for itself.

Even though you are sure that the "working class" is a revolutionary vehicle, there is still the "question" as to the fact that they are not the slightest bit revolutionary, what you call an "identity crises."

Instead of offering anything approaching a solid answer to this question, you pass the buck to the "working class" itself. (That would be a funny survey, "Why are you not revolutionary, worker?) This simply reveales the entrenched bunkruptcy on your part. What you espouse is a religion, not a realistic grasp of the social world.

Going be the principle of Ockham's Razor, American workers do not want to fundementally alter the global schema, not because of an "identity crises," but because they benefit of the current order.

[Lynx]

I agree that workers in the wealthier nations have been pacified by their overall standard of living. I don't believe this is sufficient cause to write them off or make predictions that revolution can only come from the third world.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree that workers in the wealthier nations have been pacified by their overall standard of living. I don't believe this is sufficient cause to write them off or make predictions that revolution can only come from the third world.


Very well put, Lynx. I agree with this position.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Plenty of productive labor occurs within the U.S. (i.e. labor which alters the physical qualities of a commodity). However, much of this labor is done by people other than Americans. This included migrant fields workers and immigrant garment workers. In terms of America, child and prison labor is sometimes utilized, but in the latter a disproportionate number of people are from internally oppressed nations (i.e. black, indigenous, etc).

I'm not sure the point you are making here.


The tertiary sector does not produce value, but is involved in the realization of value.

This is not true. The tertiary sector also contains productive labourers (truck drivers and transport workers, as well as more arguably other various service workers, entertainers, etc.)


An unproductive laborer is exploited, according to Marx, when the increased amount of value realized is more than the unproductive laborer receives in compensation.

This makes no sense. If a worker is unproductive, that is they do not produce surplus-value by their labour they can not possibly be exploited. However, unproductive workers remain workers. The proletariat is exploited as a class. Whether the individual worker contributes directly the expansion of capital or represents a deduction from it is irrelevant to their class status.


Regarding why this specific fact is important, it is indicative of a certain level of parasitism on the part of the American economy. You simply can't have an economy based on selling things. Someone is making them, often at wages 30 times lower than those who are simply standing behind a cash register.Yes, you are identifying a fact about the American economy. However, by failing to make a real class analysis (there is not talk of the American working class, only the 'parasitism' of the 'American economy') you are drawing false conclusions about the American (and wider first world) proletariat being 'parasites' (a lovely emotive and populist term).


Obviously however, cops, security guards and your average bank teller have next to no revolutionary internationalist class consciousness.In contrast what you would call the ('third world') proletariat the bearer of the highest and most fully developed class consciousness? The fact that cops, security guards and/or bank tellers have no "revolutionary internationalist [what a disgusting mockery of the term you make] class consciousness" has nothing to do with their class status.


So all this fetishizing of 'workers' is plain dumb-- since 'workers' are obviously not a revolutionary vehicle.

"[T]he emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves" (General Rules, IWA, October 1864)

On a serious note, pray tell, what is the distinction between the proletariat and the working class?


What is important in the formation of revolutionary class conciousness however is one relation to capital and position within the process of capital accumulation, specifically whether one primarily beneifits under the current system or is buried underneath it.

Again, if you seriously think that the American working class (or any other 'first world' working class) benefits from the continuation of capitalism you are seriously out of touch with the real world.

Those Maoist Third-Worldist music videos really should come with a disclaimer: "The following is a work of fiction, any and all resemblances to reality are pure coincidence."


Notice that Lenin descibes the entire process by which, "a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy," as Western parasitism.

I don't really give a damn what he described 'them' as or what you want to interpret him as meaning.


This is an ad hominem fallacy.

No it is not. Ad Hominem is not just some fancy bit of latin you can whip out at people when they insult you on the internet, it has an actual meaning. Learn more here (http://plover.net/%7Ebonds/adhominem.html)


I could be a fucking fish and it wouldn't have a bearing on whether or not my arguments are correct or not.

I never said it had anything to do with the validity of your argument. I said I think your argument reflects this about you.


Even though you are sure that the "working class" is a revolutionary vehicle, there is still the "question" as to the fact that they are not the slightest bit revolutionary, what you call an "identity crises."

I don't see what is at all strange about this.


Instead of offering anything approaching a solid answer to this question, you pass the buck to the "working class" itself.There is not 'passing the buck' here, only a recognition that this problem can only be solved by the working class itself and not by some prefigured magic formula of revolutionaries.


Going be the principle of Ockham's Razor, American workers do not want to fundementally alter the global schema, not because of an "identity crises," but because they benefit of the current order.Using Occam's Razor (another flimsy attempt of yours to justify your argument philosophically) one, by your logic, could equally 'prove' that the third-world proletariat is not revolutionary either or even the impossibility of communism (capitalism is humanity's highest and most perfectly natural state of being hence why all previous revolutions have failed).

I like the fact that you call my argument 'funny' when the joke is on you. Either way I think this discussion is moving away from what the OP originally intended. Given that I respect Larry's aim with this thread (and also that I don't think there is any value in continuing debate with you - we've all been through the motions before) I won't bother responding to your posts again.

[eyedrop]

When I look at the statistics for my country (production of oil and gas is not included), I find (link) (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/10/07/industri_en/) that even though a smaller part of the workforce is employed in the industry. From about 23% to down to 12% the gross product of industry has still risen.

So less people are producing more, in fact productivity per industry worker has almost rose by a factor of 6 since the 50'ties. It seems to me that the reduction of the industrial workforce is just a symptom of that less and less of the population need to work in the productive sectors, as the technology increases. This should have been resolved by a shorter work week, but capitalism doesn't work that way.

I don't know how it is in relation to the US and I would be glad if someone can find some graphs depicting the US industrial output the last couple of decades.




I should have better expressed what i said earlier. Very little is produced by Americans, especially relative to the size of the U.S. economy. Plenty of productive labor occurs within the U.S. (i.e. labor which alters the physical qualities of a commodity). However, much of this labor is done by people other than Americans. This included migrant fields workers and immigrant garment workers. In terms of America, child and prison labor is sometimes utilized, but in the latter a disproportionate number of people are from internally oppressed nations (i.e. black, indigenous, etc).
In a rich country, as Norway is, which exports more than it imports, so it isn't exploiting other countries (it certainly has international companies who does), the working class must be exploited. The working class here has higher wages, better benefits and securities shouldn't it then follow that the American working class, which does the same work, is also exploited, and that the rich folks are the one doing the exploiting of both the American working class and the working class of the other countries.