Denying labor aristocracy and opposing unions: contradictory?

[GracchusBabeuf]

,

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't agree with the view attributed to Left Communists, but as I see it there is no contradiction.

Unions, at least under capitalism, can (and do) suck for a whole host of reasons. As such, opposition to them is often justified. Whether or not the labor aristocracy exists, one could have plenty of other criticisms.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx
I don't agree with the view attributed to Left Communists.
Just to be clear, you agree that there is a labor aristocracy?

Yup, sorry for the confusion.




Unions, at least under capitalism, can (and do) suck for a whole host of reasons.

Can you be a little more specific about your reasons?

Well for example several are silent on issues of race, war, or female oppression outside the workplace; I don't see that as a problem solely of being part of the labor aristocracy.

[MarxSchmarx]

According to this article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3101), they claim that Lenin was nothing better than a sociologist and that the theory of labour aristocracy is a "a sociological theory to divide the working class", however as usual, they fail to address the most important factor today: imperialism. The role played by the labour aristocracy in imperialist countries is one to temper the class consciousness of the working class and render them impotent with social democracy being the highest "revolution" they will aspire for, while the imperialists maintain the neo-colonial exploitation in the colonized countries. It is also a little more than ironic that these same people constantly use the same "sociological" theories to slander communists, oppose unions as "bourgeois" and divide all working class movements all over the world.

Another thing I find problematic about that article is that it assumes the peasants own or at least control some of the means of productions. This is not the case in the majority of countries with a "people's war" e.g., India or Peru, where the peasantry are so deeply indebted that they do not realistically own the land and capital with which they grow their crops. Thus, in discussing the unique characteristics of the working class outside the imperialist states, the article fails to address the fact that much of the agricultural workforce has effectively been "proletarianized". This in turn fails to recognize a major factor in any mature understanding of the role of the labor aristocracy in structuring the workers movement in the industrialized nations, and in the relationship between the working class in agricultural societies and the agriarian, rural populations of those states.

[S.Artesian]

According to this article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3101), they claim that Lenin was nothing better than a sociologist and that the theory of labour aristocracy is a "a sociological theory to divide the working class", however as usual, they fail to address the most important factor today: imperialism. The role played by the labour aristocracy in imperialist countries is one to temper the class consciousness of the working class and render them impotent with social democracy being the highest "revolution" they will aspire for, while the imperialists maintain the neo-colonial exploitation in the colonized countries. It is also a little more than ironic that these same people constantly use the same "sociological" theories to slander communists, oppose unions as "bourgeois" and divide all working class movements all over the world.

What Lenin never shows in Imperialism, and what none of the followers of Lenin's theory [which I've read] has shown is exactly the mechanism by which capital uses the profits from less developed countries to subsidize the wages of the workers in the more advanced countries.

At bottom, this theory of "bribery" via distribution of superprofits can be restated to say that the higher wages of industrial workers in the northern United States were a product of the lower wages paid to industrial white workers in the southern United States, whose own wages were "subsidized" by the lower wages paid to industrial black workers in the South, whose own "higher wages" were the product of the lower earnings of black tenant farmers, and so on and so on and so on in a never ending daisy chain of wealth transfer, except...

Except capitalism doesn't reproduce itself that way. Capitalism does not subsidize one set of wages by transferring profits from lower wage bill operations to higher wage bill operations.

On an empirical level, the US bourgeoisie for the most part do not even repatriate profits from their operations in the developing countries as such repatriation would make the profits taxable to the US government. Non-repatriation makes them untaxable.

Secondly, the level of investment of, for example, US companies in low wage countries is dramatically less than the US investment in the high wage countries of the UK, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Japan [which alone account for, if I recall correctly from a few years ago about 65-75% of US international investment. With 1/4 to 1/3 of US profits from overseas operations, and 2/3 to 3/4 of that from the high wage countries, there is precious little super in the profits from less developed countries.

Thirdly, look around... what have the bourgeoisie been doing for the last 40 years but attacking wages, reducing wages, "dismantling" the "bribing" of the working class, securing "labor peace" by relentlessly undermining labor costs through capital flight, "off-shoring," shifting production away from the "aristocracy."

Is there, was there a "labor aristocracy"? Yes. Is it based on bribery, which in turn is based on transferring wealth from lower wage countries, or lower paid workers? No. It is based on productivity of labor, and the demands of the production process for specialization because of this very productivity in the higher wage countries.

[Dave B]

The idea may have originated from Engels eg




The truth is this: during the period of England’s industrial monopoly the English working-class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out amongst them; the privileged minority pocketed most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then. And that is the reason why, since the dying-out of Owenism, there has been no Socialism in England. With the breakdown of that monopoly, the English working-class will lose that privileged position; it will find itself generally — the privileged and leading minority not excepted on a level with its fellow-workers abroad. And that is the reason why there will be Socialism again in England."



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/01/11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1892/01/11.htm)


The whole thing might be worth a read.



.

[S.Artesian]

I'm not sure what you mean by repatriation here. Do you mean the imperialist bourgeoisie do not return the money they stole from the colonized countries or that they do not pay wages for their labor lieutenants who assist them in the super-exploitation of the colonies? Either way, that is pretty bold statement and one made without any facts to back it up. Either that or I'm missing your point totally.


The US bourgeoisie who have profits from overseas operations do not repatriate those profits to their home offices. To do say makes them subject to US tax. There's nothing bold about this. It's a fact. Look at the US BEA website. Look at US tax codes. Look at US annual corporate reports. Profits are recorded they are not repatriated.

Cisco for one has $29 billion, or had $29 billion in 2008, in cash in countries where it maintains overseas operations. The cash generated from those operations is kept outside the United States. In the US? Cisco keeps $4 billion.

The US has always had a higher wage structure than average wages in Europe, Japan, the UK-- until of course the 1970s and the initiation of the great bourgeois offensive against the working classes in the US and worldwide.

The issue of international capitalist expanded reproduction, of accumulation, is much more complicated, that is to say capitalist, than these notion of "looting," "bribery," "super-exploitation," "super-profits."

Look at the data the US Dept of Commerce provides in its various satellite sites-- the Statistical Abstract, Quarterly Financial Reviews, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Annual Survey of Manufacturers.

There is no there there when it comes to the claim that the US bribes its working class with profits "stolen" from the "third world."

[Glenn Beck]

S. Artesian I don't understand your criticism, it seems rather pedantic to insist that superexploitation of more marginalized populations in the global economy cannot subsidize conditions of workers elsewhere unless the profits are physically repatriated.

The entire point of 'labor aristocracy' is that capitalism can only afford the squeeze on profits represented by concessions to labor if they make up the difference elsewhere. The universal extension of those rights is an existential threat to capitalism. Thus a 'labor aristocracy' develops, consisting of a section of workers who identify with the interests of their own bourgeoisie on the basis of some identity they share with that bourgeoisie, typically ethnic or national because they find they are able to earn some limited and temporary concessions on that basis.

There is no need whatsoever for a "daisy-chain" of wealth transfer. Yes, indeed, the wages of workers privileged relative to another set of workers are 'subsidized' by the exploitation of more heavily exploited workers, but this isn't remotely as absurd as you make it sound. The 'subsidy' in this case is simply the fact that the access given to certain workers to a greater share of the social product is only made possible by the exclusion of other workers from those benefits. If all workers were permitted the same privileges then the system would be unable to maintain profitability and we would have a revolutionary situation on our hands.

Give this understanding, I also don't see why we should be surprised by capitalist attacks on the conditions of a 'labor aristocracy'. An acceptable drag on profits is still a drag on profits so it is natural that capitalist interests should constantly seek to roll back whatever concessions have been granted. And constant vigilance is required to make sure whatever drain on profitability there is remains within acceptable boundaries, which are constantly changing: if overall profits take a dive then so does what the capitalist class finds to be acceptable.

[S.Artesian]

S. Artesian I don't understand your criticism, it seems rather pedantic to insist that superexploitation of more marginalized populations in the global economy cannot subsidize conditions of workers elsewhere unless the profits are physically repatriated.

The entire point of 'labor aristocracy' is that capitalism can only afford the squeeze on profits represented by concessions to labor if they make up the difference elsewhere. The universal extension of those rights is an existential threat to capitalism. Thus a 'labor aristocracy' develops, consisting of a section of workers who identify with the interests of their own bourgeoisie on the basis of some identity they share with that bourgeoisie, typically ethnic or national because they find they are able to earn some limited and temporary concessions on that basis.

There is no need whatsoever for a "daisy-chain" of wealth transfer. Yes, indeed, the wages of workers privileged relative to another set of workers are 'subsidized' by the exploitation of more heavily exploited workers, but this isn't remotely as absurd as you make it sound. The 'subsidy' in this case is simply the fact that the access given to certain workers to a greater share of the social product is only made possible by the exclusion of other workers from those benefits. If all workers were permitted the same privileges then the system would be unable to maintain profitability and we would have a revolutionary situation on our hands.

Give this understanding, I also don't see why we should be surprised by capitalist attacks on the conditions of a 'labor aristocracy'. An acceptable drag on profits is still a drag on profits so it is natural that capitalist interests should constantly seek to roll back whatever concessions have been granted. And constant vigilance is required to make sure whatever drain on profitability there is remains within acceptable boundaries, which are constantly changing: if overall profits take a dive then so does what the capitalist class finds to be acceptable.

The issue was originally identified as "bribery," that the "superprofits" extracted from superexploitation of less-developed countries, in addition to looting, were used to bribe layers, sections, if not the entirety of the working class in the advanced countries. How do you bribe a class, how do you increase the wages utilizing profits obtained from other sources without identifying the mechanisms for transfer?

Whether the "super profits" go into the bourgeoisie's pockets to make up a "profit shortfall" or go into the "aristocracy of labor's" pockets as bribe, their has to be a means of transfer.

And moreover, the transfer has to be identified as coming from the "super-exploitation."

And more than that, evidence has to be produced that the working class in the home countries benefits directly from such super-exploitation.

When I say directly, I mean directly-- not indirectly because capital is expanding profitably; not indirectly in that overproduction is mitigated; not indirectly in that technological innovation reduces injury or deaths in the work place; not in that as all the preceding occur the bourgeoisie has to improve educational opportunities, medical care, public transportation, etc.... the bourgeoisie may do all those things, but they do them for the reason they do all other things-- to increase profitability, to remove the burden of social reproduction from the capitalists individually and collectively and place the burden on the society as a whole.

You express your argument well, and cogently, but where's the data? Where's the evidence for the evolution of capital as you describe it; for one portion of the workers obtaining a "greater share" of the social product only through reducing the share of the social product another section of workers receive?

You state: "The 'subsidy' in this case is simply the fact that the access given to certain workers to a greater share of the social product is only made possible by the exclusion of other workers from those benefits."


Historical data points to just the opposite being the case-- that wages and benefits for higher paid "privileged" workers are in fact held down when other workers are excluded from those wages and benefits. You have only to look at the history of the US South, of wages and benefits for privileged [and privileged they were] white workers vis-a-vis black workers pre WW2, and post WW 2 after the civil rights struggle erupted and broke through the most manifest structures of Jim Crow.

And we can see it in its reverse, as the roll back against the US working class as a whole accompanies, is coincident with reduced opportunity for black workers and the backlash against African-American equality.

How else can the bourgeoisie afford the "squeeze on profits" in the home country unless they bring those profits home, or dismantle the "home production"? If they don't do the former, and do the latter, what is the result for the "home proletariat"? Higher wages? That certainly isn't the trajectory of capitalism since 1970, and it certainly wasn't the trajectory of capitalism in the inter-world war period.

Finally, look at the portion of investment held by the capitalists in different parts of the world; look at the mass and the rate of the return on those investments in the less developed countries. Again, the evidence does not support the "centrality" of such distinct exploitation to the higher wage rates in the advanced countries.

The US has much more investment in Australia, Canada, Japan, the UK than it does in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia. Are wage rates in the US a product of some sort of "backfilling" from Australian, Canadian, UK, wage-rates?

[S.Artesian]

These attacks on the working class within the imperialist countries have gone hand in hand with similar attacks on workers in colonized countries with far more devastation caused in those colonized countries than you can imagine. The "cuts" to workers wages and the ruining of many petit-bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries is practically nothing compared to the level of exploitation of the workers and peasantry in the colonized countries. Yet, we see that the workers in the colonies rise against this order while the workers in the imperialist countries identify with this order because of some reason. This reason is the existence of a labour aristocracy. They may not be militarily involved in imperialism. However, socially, they are quite in tow with the imperialist bourgeoisie. As Lenin said,
This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook, [...] the principal social (not military) prop of the bourgeoisie
Yet, your whole argument rests on the existence of certain tax codes and you are yet to demonstrate what the corporations do with all the wealth stolen from the colonies.

Comrade, for someone who doesn't include a single reference to any empirical data concerning any of your claims, you sure as hell presume a lot about what other people know and don't know. I know exactly how severe the lost decade was in Latin America; I know exactly the toll it took on wages of the workers in Mexico-- 50% as a matter of fact; I know that many children and infants suffered as their mothers had to feed them sugar sodas because they could no longer afford milk or milk-base products.

I also know the toll that the hyperinflation of the mid 80s took on the working people, and yes, the petit-bourgeoisie of Brazil; the toll that IMF sponsored economic retrenchment took on females in Senegal in the 90s with young women forced out of schools in order to gather firewood and water for their families who were forced out of their tenuous hold of urban employment. So please don't presume to tell me what I do and don't know about the workings of advanced capitalism and the toll it takes on workers and poor in the less advanced countries.

As long as we're testing who knows what, let me ask you: What is the main method of transporting goods to market in Africa since 1990?

For all your huffing and puffing about being a real friend of the toiling masses, you don't know what you're talking about when you say the "cuts to the workers in the advanced countries mean practically nothing compared to the level of exploitation in less developed countries."

That's about as ignorant a statement, should I say "third world chauvinist" statement I've heard since I heard some Panther wannabees talking about blowing up factories with the workers inside because the workers were privileged and bourgeoisified [ this was in Detroit, and the workers in question were African-American. Needless to say the wannabees "transitional program" for world revolution didn't go down to well with these workers].

Those cuts certainly meant a lot to the working class, and meant even more, unfortunately, to the bourgeoisie in the US. Why the fuck do you think they keep sucking Ronald Reagan's dead dick, if not to try an coax one more load of life-giving, wage-cutting jism?

Do I sound pissed? Hey, sorry if I'm pissed about being told what I do and don't know when discussing the claims someone else has made without providing a shred of empirical data to back such "theorizing."

And my arguments don't depend on the US tax code. I gave you a whole list of reference sites to check for data. If you don't want to actually study the numbers the bourgeoisie produce to measure how well they're doing at making others do poorly, that's you problem. The tax code is the least of the issues.

Get a grip now, because here comes something really shocking-- Lenin was wrong. Wrong in his analysis of imperialism, and wrong in the conclusions he drew from his wrongful analysis.

[S.Artesian]

Simple response: You're posing, not analyzing

[S.Artesian]

Also the neo-colonial exploitation takes place today in the form of neo-colonies acting as sweatshops and production centers for imperialism. In that way, one can say that the imperialist super-exploitation is actually enjoyed by the working class in the imperialist countries.

Bu your point on the non-repatriation of super-profits, if it is valid, is only applicable to the US, yet it does address my other (the actually important) point about the labor aristocracy:

In short, how do you explain the level of anti-imperialist or socialist consciousness (or lack of it) among the proletariat of the imperialist countries? What data do you need to prove this? So much for your accusations against me for being a 'Third World chauvinist'. If applying Lenin's thesis on imperialism makes me a Third World chauvinist, then I am one and so were Lenin, Mao and the other anti-imperialists of the past decades.

The non-repatriation of stolen wealth from the colonies directly to the hands of the working class in imperialist countries does not negate the existence of the labor aristocracy which exists to extend imperialism abroad and achieve social democracy at home, all the while espousing a Eurocentric defense of imperialism and "progressive" capitalism.

That's not the question. I stated earlier that the labor aristocracy exists. The issue is bribery through superprofits extracted from less developed countries. While the labor aristocracy exists, that bribery from those superprofits does not exist.

As for the sweatshop impact on US production workers-- this is also a bit more complex as this outsourcing, export and reimportation has been a major factor in the decline in the numbers of the US industrial working class; a significant reason for "givebacks," tiered wage structures, reduced benefits, shrinking union representation, etc. etc. So no, I don't think the US working class is enjoying the fruits of China's admission to the WTO and the end of the MFA.

And one more thing-- something that I think is significant-- Lenin's and his followers' theory of imperialism was not based on the "benefit" of lower priced imports replacing higher priced domestic production. That theory was based on the export of capital realizing greater profits due to reduced wages in the less developed countries and/or the force feeding of industrial commodities to those countries in "unequal exchange."

Now I suggest that the impact on the working class of cheaper imports has been to reduce the average wages, the proportion of total "social product" the workers in advanced countries can claim, since these imports, when absorbed into the workers' means of subsistence, reduce the cost for the reproduction of their labor power, increasing the portion of labor time that is surplus labor time and surplus value; in fact doing just the opposite of what is claimed regarding the total social product in that the imports contribute to the bourgeoisie aggrandizing more of the total social product and the workers obtain relatively less.

That's for those of you who think there's more to advanced capitalism, and its international domination, than whatever Lenin said in 1921 based on data from 1898.

I guess you're not able to answer that relatively simple question about Africa.

[RED DAVE]

A critical point is the continued wage packet for workers, aristocratic or otherwise, in the advanced industrial (imperialist) countries.

Fact is that real wages in the US (wages compared to prices), for example, have actually declined. Real wages peaked in 1972 at $331.59/week based in 1960 dollars. The comparable figure for 2004 was $277.57/wk. In addition, workers work on the average 184 more hours per years.

http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

Therefore, denying the existence of a labor aristocracy and opposing the unions seem contradictory to each other. Yet, a few people, mainly left communists, do both: deny the existence of a labor aristocracy and oppose unions. Isn't this contradictory?

I don't see why this is contradictory, but then I am a left communist and I do hold both of those ideas, so I wouldn't. Could you explain why you see it as so, and I will try to respond.

Devrim

[Devrim]

According to this article (http://en.internationalism.org/node/3101), they claim that Lenin was nothing better than a sociologist and that the theory of labour aristocracy is a "a sociological theory to divide the working class",

It doesn't claim that 'Lenin was nothing better than a sociologist'. It claims that this theory, today, is a sociological theory.

Devrim

[BAM]

Finally, look at the portion of investment held by the capitalists in different parts of the world; look at the mass and the rate of the return on those investments in the less developed countries. Again, the evidence does not support the "centrality" of such distinct exploitation to the higher wage rates in the advanced countries.

The US has much more investment in Australia, Canada, Japan, the UK than it does in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Colombia. Are wage rates in the US a product of some sort of "backfilling" from Australian, Canadian, UK, wage-rates?

Just to bolster this argument: among European Union countries, almost four-fifths of foreign investment occurs within the EU itself. Extra-EU foreign investment is mainly with non-EU European countries, the United States, Canada and Japan, with investment in developing countries accounting for a small percentage of the overall total.

[Leo]

No it is not contradictory. The relationship of the theory of the labor aristocracy and the stance on the trade-unions traditionally has been that the leaders of the mainstream western unions constitute the labor aristocracy, are still a part of the working class, but a part bought off by the bosses, a part given benefits by the state, thus a part of the working class but not a part willing to struggle, or fight against capitalism. From this logic followed the tactic of entering and attempting to conquer the reactionary unions from the labor aristocrats in the West.

Our conception is that the trade-unions are integrated completely into the state, that their heads are structurally a part of the bourgeois state and thus of the bourgeoisie, and that it is impossible to conquer them. I don't think denying the theory of the labor aristocracy and opposing the unions is contradictory - quite the contrary, they rather go together.

[zimmerwald1915]

Imperialism attempts to link up two phenomena. The first was the extent to which the capitalist world market, and capitalist states, had imposed themselves upon everyone else by force. The second was the extent to which the top layers of the unions had sold out to the most successful imperialist states. The first enables and incentivizes the second. The political struggle against imperialism is also the social struggle within the unions against the "labor aristocracy" and for communist leadership.

The problem is that, with decolonization, it has become painfully clear that it is by no means necessary for a country to be successfully imperialist for its unions to be hermetically attached to the state. That is not to suggest that antipathy to the unions in various currents came directly out of this historical revelation. The German Left drew its antipathy to the unions from its evaluation of their behavior during the Revolution, and from the workers' relationship to the unions during the same period. What they saw was the union leadership making agreements with the state and the bosses, while the most class-conscious workers said "screw the unions" and set up other structures. All I'm suggesting is that it's very difficult to defend the idea of a "labor aristocracy" in the imperialist states when it is readily apparent that unions in every country engage in the same sort of behavior. In Lenin's time a correlation between successful imperialism and labor aristocracy existed, and theories could be formulated based on it: today this is not the case.

What the theory of labor aristocracy has become today is a method of heaping scorn on the workers of First World countries.

[turquino]

Lenin’s Imperialism was a popular outline. It was hastily written and not meant to be a general theory of all imperialism, but a refutation of Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism. It would be a mistake to consider it the final word on imperialism. Unfortunately some well-meaning communists have clung to it in response to attacks from those trying to disprove evident parasitism in the imperialist countries.

‘S Artesan’ says the productivity of labour explains differences in the wealth of the industrialized countries and the non-industrialized. I think that’s wrong. Let’s use an example of two commodities that are freely traded on the world market. Cocoa beans and chocolate. Cocoa is grown in the tropical climate of West African countries, while the chocolate is made in food processing plants in Europe. The cool climate would make cocoa cultivation very difficult in Europe so we should consider the commodities to be exclusive. Assuming average world productivity and skill in both industries, one hour of the cocoa-grower is identical to one hour of the chocolate-maker. The value created is equal. It’s not as if the growers are working with the 1/10 the speed and intensity of the chocolate-makers, in fact it’s probably the opposite. So why are wages and prices of production so much higher in chocolate manufacturing than cocoa cultivation?

Owing to historical requirements such as keeping a patriotic working class, wages have been pushed above the value of labour power in the imperialist nations, allowing the formation of a big middle class of wage earners. In turn, the prices of production of exported commodities have risen in order to equalize the rate of profit in the world market. The oppressed nations are dominated by the terms of trade set by the imperialists, forced to sell cheaply and buy dearly, hiding the large transfer of value upward.

The problem with claiming productivity explains wage differences is that low-wage and high-wage countries aren’t typically producing the same commodities. Productivity differences could be a factor in some agriculture and mining, but not with manufacturing. The trend has been to ‘outsource’ labour-intensive manufacturing to non-industrialized countries because wages are so low.

The general basis of high wages in the imperialist countries is parasitism, not the high productivity of labour. If wages in every country were equalized upward to the average north American wage, total profits would be negative. High wages are only possible because of the existence of correspondingly low wages. The workers no longer have any interest in ending the exploitation of one nation by another so long as they benefit by it.

[S.Artesian]

Lenin’s Imperialism was a popular outline. It was hastily written and not meant to be a general theory of all imperialism, but a refutation of Kautsky’s theory of ultra-imperialism. It would be a mistake to consider it the final word on imperialism. Unfortunately some well-meaning communists have clung to it in response to attacks from those trying to disprove evident parasitism in the imperialist countries.

‘S Artesan’ says the productivity of labour explains differences in the wealth of the industrialized countries and the non-industrialized. I think that’s wrong. Let’s use an example of two commodities that are freely traded on the world market. Cocoa beans and chocolate. Cocoa is grown in the tropical climate of West African countries, while the chocolate is made in food processing plants in Europe. The cool climate would make cocoa cultivation very difficult in Europe so we should consider the commodities to be exclusive. Assuming average world productivity and skill in both industries, one hour of the cocoa-grower is identical to one hour of the chocolate-maker. The value created is equal. It’s not as if the growers are working with the 1/10 the speed and intensity of the chocolate-makers, in fact it’s probably the opposite. So why are wages and prices of production so much higher in chocolate manufacturing than cocoa cultivation?

Owing to historical requirements such as keeping a patriotic working class, wages have been pushed above the value of labour power in the imperialist nations, allowing the formation of a big middle class of wage earners. In turn, the prices of production of exported commodities have risen in order to equalize the rate of profit in the world market. The oppressed nations are dominated by the terms of trade set by the imperialists, forced to sell cheaply and buy dearly, hiding the large transfer of value upward.

The problem with claiming productivity explains wage differences is that low-wage and high-wage countries aren’t typically producing the same commodities. Productivity differences could be a factor in some agriculture and mining, but not with manufacturing. The trend has been to ‘outsource’ labour-intensive manufacturing to non-industrialized countries because wages are so low.

The general basis of high wages in the imperialist countries is parasitism, not the high productivity of labour. If wages in every country were equalized upward to the average north American wage, total profits would be negative. High wages are only possible because of the existence of correspondingly low wages. The workers no longer have any interest in ending the exploitation of one nation by another so long as they benefit by it.

You must be assuming that there is a fixed quantity wage-pool where any increase in wages in one sector must be balanced by a decrease in wages in another sector. The actual history of capitalism shows that not to be the case.

Your comparison of chocolate and cocoa bears little resemblance to the real world in that it takes no account of two critical factors-- cost prices, and prices of production.

The cost price of chocolate includes the wages, the value of the raw materials, that are consumed in the fabrication of the chocolate, and the value of the means of production that give up their value incrementally over time [fixed capital and its depreciation]. The price of production also incudes the surplus value, the increment extracted from wage-labor. It's quite possible for the price of chocolate to be high and the relative wage contribution to very very small. With greater surplus value contained in the chocolate product, a higher wage can be sustained without having to resort to "wage transfer" arguments such as you employ in your example.

And you offer no data to support your contention about either the prices of chocolate or cocoa, the wages of the laborers in the production of the chocolate, or the wages of workers on the cocoa plantations.

Rather than chocolate and cocoa, look at the example of semiconductor fabrication. Labor costs in the United States for the production of microprocessors are amount to less than 1% of the sales price. So exactly how are the US worker's wages being subsidized by the lower wages paid to workers in countries where the rare earth elements required for semiconductor fabrication are being mined and exported?


In essence, you are arguing that the price of chocolate is high because the wages are high, and the wages can only be high if the cost of the cocoa is low. You can claim that, but you haven't shown that. You haven't shown any necessary connection between these different variables, and as the case of semiconductors show, the "higher wage" may be an insignificant portion of the price of the product.

Now certainly labor can be equally productively in two different sectors, nations, enterprises etc. and be compensated unequally. That's not at issue. But are the compensations somehow fixed, existing in inverse relationships and always totaling "1."


When we are talking about productivity, we are not talking about, or only about, how much product is produced in a specific unit of time, nor even solely of the value "extruded" in a unit of time, since 1 hour is always equal to 1 hour. We are talking about how quickly the worker works up values equal to the reproduction of his or her own wage.

The cocoa workers may be laboring longer and for less, but yielding less surplus labor time, less surplus labor time; while the worker in the advanced countries may have a much higher wage, work less hours, and yet reproduce his/her own wage in much less time-- that by the way is how what occurred in the 2003-2007 US recovery. Actual reproduction of wages dropped, in my calculations from consuming a bit over 1.3 hours of work, to around 1.2 hours of work. Nice work if you can get it, and the bourgeoisie got it.

As for the argument that manufacturing productivity is the pretty much the same the world over-- not hardly.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics issues periodic reports on international comparisons of productivity and total factor productivity, which clarify the "superaggrandizement" of US workers by the bourgeoisie.

Studies conducted by the US National Assn of Manufacturers argue that for each hour of labor, the "value added" by a worker in the US is 2.5 times the "value added" by a similarly employed worker in China, and 4 times that of a worker in Brazil.

And we need to included total factor productivity-- for example Brazil agriculture's soybean sector has yields that match, if not exceed, the US yields per acre. But, transportation is so poorly developed in Brazil, consumes so much time and money, that the advantage Brazil might realize based on its lower wage structure [again which would benefit the Brazilian bourgeoisie, not the US worker] is lost in the costs of transportation.

As for parasitism-- well again you haven't provided anything that remotely explains the mechanism for such parasitism except to say that if all wages were at North American levels, then profitability would collapse. That's not an explanation of parasitism

The issue is I think:

Do US workers for example, benefit from the operations of General Motors in China, where autoworkers are paid much less than in the US. Does that differential provide GM with the ability to make concessions, and bribe US autoworkers? Does the class of workers in the US benefit from the operations of their US employers in low wage countries, and is that benefit a wealth transfer from the wages of the workers in those other countries?

The contemporary data blows that notion right out of the water.

[turquino]

You must be assuming that there is a fixed quantity wage-pool where any increase in wages in one sector must be balanced by a decrease in wages in another sector. The actual history of capitalism shows that not to be the case.

Your comparison of chocolate and cocoa bears little resemblance to the real world in that it takes no account of two critical factors-- cost prices, and prices of production.

The cost price of chocolate includes the wages, the value of the raw materials, that are consumed in the fabrication of the chocolate, and the value of the means of production that give up their value incrementally over time [fixed capital and its depreciation]. The price of production also incudes the surplus value, the increment extracted from wage-labor. It's quite possible for the price of chocolate to be high and the relative wage contribution to very very small. With greater surplus value contained in the chocolate product, a higher wage can be sustained without having to resort to "wage transfer" arguments such as you employ in your example.

And you offer no data to support your contention about either the prices of chocolate or cocoa, the wages of the laborers in the production of the chocolate, or the wages of workers on the cocoa plantations.

Rather than chocolate and cocoa, look at the example of semiconductor fabrication. Labor costs in the United States for the production of microprocessors are amount to less than 1% of the sales price. So exactly how are the US worker's wages being subsidized by the lower wages paid to workers in countries where the rare earth elements required for semiconductor fabrication are being mined and exported?


In essence, you are arguing that the price of chocolate is high because the wages are high, and the wages can only be high if the cost of the cocoa is low. You can claim that, but you haven't shown that. You haven't shown any necessary connection between these different variables, and as the case of semiconductors show, the "higher wage" may be an insignificant portion of the price of the product.

Now certainly labor can be equally productively in two different sectors, nations, enterprises etc. and be compensated unequally. That's not at issue. But are the compensations somehow fixed, existing in inverse relationships and always totaling "1."


When we are talking about productivity, we are not talking about, or only about, how much product is produced in a specific unit of time, nor even solely of the value "extruded" in a unit of time, since 1 hour is always equal to 1 hour. We are talking about how quickly the worker works up values equal to the reproduction of his or her own wage.

The cocoa workers may be laboring longer and for less, but yielding less surplus labor time, less surplus labor time; while the worker in the advanced countries may have a much higher wage, work less hours, and yet reproduce his/her own wage in much less time-- that by the way is how what occurred in the 2003-2007 US recovery. Actual reproduction of wages dropped, in my calculations from consuming a bit over 1.3 hours of work, to around 1.2 hours of work. Nice work if you can get it, and the bourgeoisie got it.

As for the argument that manufacturing productivity is the pretty much the same the world over-- not hardly.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics issues periodic reports on international comparisons of productivity and total factor productivity, which clarify the "superaggrandizement" of US workers by the bourgeoisie.

Studies conducted by the US National Assn of Manufacturers argue that for each hour of labor, the "value added" by a worker in the US is 2.5 times the "value added" by a similarly employed worker in China, and 4 times that of a worker in Brazil.

And we need to included total factor productivity-- for example Brazil agriculture's soybean sector has yields that match, if not exceed, the US yields per acre. But, transportation is so poorly developed in Brazil, consumes so much time and money, that the advantage Brazil might realize based on its lower wage structure [again which would benefit the Brazilian bourgeoisie, not the US worker] is lost in the costs of transportation.

As for parasitism-- well again you haven't provided anything that remotely explains the mechanism for such parasitism except to say that if all wages were at North American levels, then profitability would collapse. That's not an explanation of parasitism

The issue is I think:

Do US workers for example, benefit from the operations of General Motors in China, where autoworkers are paid much less than in the US. Does that differential provide GM with the ability to make concessions, and bribe US autoworkers? Does the class of workers in the US benefit from the operations of their US employers in low wage countries, and is that benefit a wealth transfer from the wages of the workers in those other countries?

The contemporary data blows that notion right out of the water.
I chose the example of cocoa and chocolate because it starkly illustrates the low-wage high-wage problem. Half the world’s cocoa is grown in Cote d’Ivoire and cocoa prices and wages have been in general decline for the last 40 years (a recent surge in demand has slightly reversed that). Most cocoa is produced on small holder farms and yearly wages average $30-110. In contrast the average compensation for chocolate producing in Canada appears to be about $40,000. Still down to a difference in productivity?

Let me explain what I mean when I say high wages are made possible by the existence of low wages. As capital is relatively free to move across international borders, an average rate of profit forms in the world market. The rate of profit is the surplus value realized when the commodities are sold. The prices of production are the prices that equalize the rate of profit between industries in different countries, and are almost always different from the amount of abstract labour measured in money. One part of the price of production of a commodity includes the wages of the workers, which is the amount they’re paid for their labour power. Unlike capital, labour is not able to move freely across international borders and it’s price doesn’t equalize internationally like the prices of other commodities. Rather, it’s dependent on various factors such as its scarcity, trade union action, and labour laws.

Let’s imagine two countries A and B, each producing one commodity for exchange, the international rate of profit having been determined ex ante. When country A raises wages, it pushes up the price of production of its commodity above its abstract labour value because the price need to rise in order to maintain the same rate of profit. Low-wage country B, on the other hand, produces a commodity with a price of production under its value due to its historically miserable rate of remuneration. An indirect transfer of value from B to A occurs when B exports its cheap commodity to country A in exchange for a high-priced import. Without any trade imbalance, country A could appropriate tens of thousands of hours of labour from B in the exchange. The workers of country A benefit as they can afford to purchase a larger basket of imported commodities of the same value than they otherwise would be able to if wages were equal internationally.

Similar, smaller transfers of value occur within national economies due to differing organic compositions of capital and turnover times, but since there’s only one labour market wages can’t deviate to the extent they do internationally.

The “value added” by each US worker presupposes an already overvalued commodity from the high wages paid! Wage differentials have already been included in the calculation, which is what is attempting to be justified in the first place. Terms like “value added” and “productivity” when used by bourgeois economists are irrelevant to any discussion about value in the marxist understanding. If you have evidence that physical production per labour-hour is in line with wage differentials then let’s see it because all I’ve found suggests otherwise.

The conclusion is if an upward equalization of wages makes total profits negative, it means a portion of the value in the consumption goods of the US worker is only possible due to the undervaluation of imported commodities. The parasitism from value transfers manifests as the disproportionately large social product consumed by the masses of the imperialist nations.

[S.Artesian]

I chose the example of cocoa and chocolate because it starkly illustrates the low-wage high-wage problem. Half the world’s cocoa is grown in Cote d’Ivoire and cocoa prices and wages have been in general decline for the last 40 years (a recent surge in demand has slightly reversed that). Most cocoa is produced on small holder farms and yearly wages average $30-110. In contrast the average compensation for chocolate producing in Canada appears to be about $40,000. Still down to a difference in productivity?

Let me explain what I mean when I say high wages are made possible by the existence of low wages. As capital is relatively free to move across international borders, an average rate of profit forms in the world market. The rate of profit is the surplus value realized when the commodities are sold. The prices of production are the prices that equalize the rate of profit between industries in different countries, and are almost always different from the amount of abstract labour measured in money. One part of the price of production of a commodity includes the wages of the workers, which is the amount they’re paid for their labour power. Unlike capital, labour is not able to move freely across international borders and it’s price doesn’t equalize internationally like the prices of other commodities. Rather, it’s dependent on various factors such as its scarcity, trade union action, and labour laws.

Let’s imagine two countries A and B, each producing one commodity for exchange, the international rate of profit having been determined ex ante. When country A raises wages, it pushes up the price of production of its commodity above its abstract labour value because the price need to rise in order to maintain the same rate of profit. Low-wage country B, on the other hand, produces a commodity with a price of production under its value due to its historically miserable rate of remuneration. An indirect transfer of value from B to A occurs when B exports its cheap commodity to country A in exchange for a high-priced import. Without any trade imbalance, country A could appropriate tens of thousands of hours of labour from B in the exchange. The workers of country A benefit as they can afford to purchase a larger basket of imported commodities of the same value than they otherwise would be able to if wages were equal internationally.

Similar, smaller transfers of value occur within national economies due to differing organic compositions of capital and turnover times, but since there’s only one labour market wages can’t deviate to the extent they do internationally.

The “value added” by each US worker presupposes an already overvalued commodity from the high wages paid! Wage differentials have already been included in the calculation, which is what is attempting to be justified in the first place. Terms like “value added” and “productivity” when used by bourgeois economists are irrelevant to any discussion about value in the marxist understanding. If you have evidence that physical production per labour-hour is in line with wage differentials then let’s see it because all I’ve found suggests otherwise.

The conclusion is if an upward equalization of wages makes total profits negative, it means a portion of the value in the consumption goods of the US worker is only possible due to the undervaluation of imported commodities. The parasitism from value transfers manifests as the disproportionately large social product consumed by the masses of the imperialist nations.


Are you comparing small holder farms to industrial capitalism and stating that the wages of the workers in industrial capitalism are a product of the lower prices paid to the owners of the small farms?

If so, then your comparison doesn't fit the models of imperialism arguing that low wages paid to workers in less developed countries subsidize higher wages paid to workers in advanced countries.

Secondly paying a lower price for a raw material than the price obtained for the finished product is kind of the lifeblood of capitalism, no? And has nothing intrinsically to do with imperialism, looting, wealth transfers, etc. look at domestic prices for manufactured commodities vs. prices offered to small agricultural producers in Indonesia, Thailand...almost anywhere.


We can look at differences in prices anywhere-- Brazil is the world's largest sugar producer. Are the differences among prices paid on the world markets for sugar and the prices paid to small sugar producers and the prices charged for sugar in supermarkets in advanced countries a transfer of wealth from the small producers? Or are those the result of the mode of production that measures value as socially necessary labor time for reproduction?


Thirdly, absolutely-- the higher wages paid to Canadian workers are enabled, "acceptable" to the bourgeoisie due to the higher productivity. Now it's very possible that should the price of cocoa rise, chocolate manufacturers will decide to attack the wages of the Canadian workers, but that does not mean that wages are subsidized in Canada by the prices paid to cocoa farmers in Africa.

When you talk about physical production per hour you have to define the sectors. "Physical outputs" per hour cannot be equalized across an economy which is exactly the function of value-- allowing unequal physical outputs to be exchanged.

But we can certainly compare those "outputs" across equivalent categories-- like the time it takes to transport X tons of grain X number of miles to port; like the time it takes to produce X tons of similar grades of steel.

We can also make those comparisons by equivalent prices. We will find that even with lower average wages, and lower overall costs, transit times are so great that the accumulated costs raise the cost of the commodity to levels equal to or above that in advanced countries, costs that cannot be recaptured in the world market as the socially necessary labor time for reproduction is below the cost of a particular producer or country. This is the case for Brazil's soybean, and agricultural export markets.


China's largest steel maker, Baosteel, produces annually on average the same tonnage of steel as Nippon Steel of Japan. However, Baosteel employ 8 times the number of workers to produce its app. 36,000 tons as does Nippon Steel.

We can compare agricultural yields per labor-hour for countries, etc. etc.

Nothing you have provided amounts to evidence of a wealth-transfer going into the wages of workers in the advanced countries.

That the bourgeoisie will loot, pay below the price and cost of production is a given. The issues are does advanced capitalism loot without reproducing value; do lower wages paid in one country allow the bourgeoisie to bribe workers in their home country.

[A.R.Amistad]

what's wrong with sociological theory altogether?