Do things like minimum wage stand in the way of capitalism destroying itself

[Red Hornet]

Do reformist policies like the minimum wage stand in the way of the self-destruction of capitalism by improving the living conditions of the working class?

[Illegalitarian]

Minimum wage is a good example of the ruling minority making concessions to the exploited class to keep it from getting militant and possibly revolting.


We mostly see these things in the developed world, they don't work so well in superexploited nations, mostly because these sort of concessions are possible in the first world due to this superexploitation. The older I get, the more I don't think we will see any change come from the first world until it comes from the third, to be honest.


Perhaps that's a bit third-worldist of me, but the active class struggle going on in the underdeveloped world compared to that going on in the first world is kind of hard to deny.

[motion denied]

No, minimum wages are the kinds of things that keep the working class alive.

The struggle for reforms can evolve into a struggle against capital (well, the struggle for wages is a direct one). Reformism is a dead-end though.

Army/police, bourgeois ideology, constant attack to workers' subjectivity, the periodical revolutions in the way capital organizes etc. are much more responsible for the barbarism we live in.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Capitalism's inherent contradictions are what make it a system that can be destroyed and replaced, the minimum wage doesn't change those contradictions. Minimum wage is something capitalists can work around and the inevitable trend of driving down wages reveals itself in rising prices that make wages count for less.

I'm of the opinion that the minimum wage is something tangible to be organised around. In the UK, people under 21 have a lower minimum wage and people under 18 even less (even if they might be doing the same jobs as the people they work with). Couple this with the fact that the minimum wage for over 21's is pathetic in itself and only ever raises based on whatever election promises the different parties are trying to cram down the throats of the poorest in order to get them to vote and in my experience it is this sort of thing that you can have discussions around with people who aren't well-read Marxists and persuade them to read more into things and/or get involved in the struggle.

[Crabbensmasher]

Minimum wage is a good example of the ruling minority making concessions to the exploited class to keep it from getting militant and possibly revolting.


We mostly see these things in the developed world, they don't work so well in superexploited nations, mostly because these sort of concessions are possible in the first world due to this superexploitation. The older I get, the more I don't think we will see any change come from the first world until it comes from the third, to be honest.


Perhaps that's a bit third-worldist of me, but the active class struggle going on in the underdeveloped world compared to that going on in the first world is kind of hard to deny.

The proletariat exists in the developed world as well as much of the developing world. It is, I believe, less apparent here than in many developing countries because of things like the minimum wage. By definition though, we, in the first world, are still proletariats.

Because of global trade, the more obvious proletariats have been outsourced to countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Mexico and the like. They are in many cases, however, the workers of 1st world capitalists, just toiling in different parts of the world. Fundamentally, the bourgeoisie here are able to exploit the proletariat of developing nations at an arm reach, and in more cunning, ingenuitive ways than they could have done here.

So in a way, I think their struggle is tied to our struggle. You could argue, perhaps, that this further global trade has strengthened our sense of international unity as a class. Eh iunno, maybe this is all apparent already.

[WilliamGreen]

The workers in sweat shops would kiss your hands if you came and helped them

Trust me, they think we're miles away. And we are.

We need to organize and have this cross international support/comradery you speak of.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

How does working for minimum wage make people not realize they're proletarians? Have you tried living off minimum wage? It stinks. Really bad, minimum wage workers know they're workers getting exploited, I don't think I've met a person on minimum wage who didnt hate it and didn't realize they were being fucked. Minimum wage is way too low anyways, that's why recently theres been so much debate and I think most people support raising it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the u.s. The states with the highest minim wages are at a level relative to half of what it would have been in the early 70s, a time of relative militancy. I'm not saying there's a direct link, but I think it does show that such reforms do not inherently dampen struggle.

In the u.s., freezing the minimum wage has been a pretty steady part of neoliberal economics. This was accomplished ideologically by blaming "mooches" and "lazy" people too unmotivated to get a "real job". Of course the real story was a massive restructuring of the economy that included a shift from blue collar to service work, increased insecurity and competition among workers, etc. so in conditions of a race to the bottom, suppressing the minimum wage helps keep that a long drop.

I think today, campaigns like fight for fifteen could help link union and nonunion workers in class wide struggles that in many cities would put them at odds with Democratic Party run city halls. The sawant campaign in Seattle shows there's some good potential in terms of being a rallying point for class issues. If fast food workers or a city/statewide community and labor based movement can win these reforms I think it would help give people some hope in general, conversely it would be an ideological blow to all the pro-business propaganda, and it would increase some stability so people are less desperate and willing to undersell themselves.

[Crabbensmasher]

How does working for minimum wage make people not realize they're proletarians? Have you tried living off minimum wage?

Have you tried working in a garment factory in Bangladesh? No, I haven't either. When you're immediately scared for your life working in a dilapidated warehouse, but have literally no other options to survive, then I'd imagine you realize your proletariat.

Yes, I know, minimum wage fucking sucks, but it's a bit different from our position. Laws against child labour, strict safety regulations for the workplace (see: Bangladesh), and in most places at least a 48 hour work week.

Maybe minimum wage was a bad example (Because you're right, is is far too fucking low), but the reforms listed above, don't you think they make life a bit easier then, say Bangladesh? Or Marx's 19th century Europe, for example?

I think we ought to acknowledge that generally, working conditions have changed in the developed world over the past 100 years. Proletariats are still proletariats, but do they really recognize themselves as such?
On top of that, there's the fabled American dream. Suddenly, minimum wage is just a 'temporary setback' on the road to wealth. And then there's the occasional "I would overthrow my landlord, but she's a really nice lady and we have tea together". Things aren't as "black and white" as they were in Marx's time, or current day Bangladesh, for example. It's our job, I suppose, to make them apparent again.

[#FF0000]

Do reformist policies like the minimum wage stand in the way of the self-destruction of capitalism by improving the living conditions of the working class?

This is a question literally every newbie communist asks for some reason. Short answer: No. A working class that is thoroughly immiserated and brutalized and hungry and battered isn't going to be able to organize and overthrow anything. Looking at the West, you see clearly that American workers are much worse off than their counterparts in Europe with poorer working conditions, wages, and a joke of a social safety net. Then look at someone like, say, France, where workers at a plant that is closing down will kidnap their boss or boobytrap a factory with actual fucking explosives until they get a massive severance package and have the support of most of the public.

So no, "more pain" does not necessarily mean any revolution is coming faster.

[Illegalitarian]

The proletariat exists in the developed world as well as much of the developing world. It is, I believe, less apparent here than in many developing countries because of things like the minimum wage. By definition though, we, in the first world, are still proletariats.

Because of global trade, the more obvious proletariats have been outsourced to countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Mexico and the like. They are in many cases, however, the workers of 1st world capitalists, just toiling in different parts of the world. Fundamentally, the bourgeoisie here are able to exploit the proletariat of developing nations at an arm reach, and in more cunning, ingenuitive ways than they could have done here.

So in a way, I think their struggle is tied to our struggle. You could argue, perhaps, that this further global trade has strengthened our sense of international unity as a class. Eh iunno, maybe this is all apparent already.

Absolutely correct, this is what I'm driving at. Their exploitation, the superprofits made from it, are what the bourgeois of developed nations use to pacify working class people here with things like extensive social programs, cheap goods, raised minimum wage etc, is my point. I don't think a genuine intensified class struggle can arise here until those who are exploited in the underdeveloped world start to intensify theirs are they are doing now.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but there does seem to be precedent here and I believe that our comrades in that part of the world are the spark that will ignite the flame.

[#FF0000]

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but there does seem to be precedent here and I believe that our comrades in that part of the world are the spark that will ignite the flame.

You are wrong, because workers in places like Europe are way more militant than workers in, say, the United States of America.

[Illegalitarian]

You are wrong, because workers in places like Europe are way more militant than workers in, say, the United States of America.

You're not exactly saying much, here. How militant are they? How many/much more demonstrations, general strikes, direct action do they participate in compared to the workers in the US? Most likely more, no doubt, but not much more, certainly not in comparison to the working class of nations with a superexploited proletariat.

When the working class of various European nations start to organize and lash out at the exploiter class through direct class struggle maybe this will mean something, but in the mean time the vast majority of European working class people are just as lulled over by these concessions as the working class in the US.

[#FF0000]

You're not exactly saying much, here. How militant are they? How many/much more demonstrations, general strikes, direct action do they participate in compared to the workers in the US? Most likely more, no doubt, but not much more, certainly not in comparison to the working class of nations with a superexploited proletariat.

When the working class of various European nations start to organize and lash out at the exploiter class through direct class struggle maybe this will mean something, but in the mean time the vast majority of European working class people are just as lulled over by these concessions as the working class in the US.

"Boss-napping" is literally a thing in France that people get away with and workers in a french plant literally set bombs on extremely expensive equipment and threatened to blow it up if they didn't get a massive severance package (they got it).

[PhoenixAsh]

Welfare and minimum wage are liberal inventions which were implemented exactly for the reason OP mentioned. Marx raged against them, especially in his address to the communist league....again...exactly for the reason OP states. Traditionally Marxists were opposed to the welfare state.

[tachosomoza]

"Boss-napping" is literally a thing in France that people get away with and workers in a french plant literally set bombs on extremely expensive equipment and threatened to blow it up if they didn't get a massive severance package (they got it).

They're really good at this in China too.

You even mention something like this in the US and you will go to prison forever because a class collaborationist will turn you the fuck in because he/she either thinks you're crazy or wants some benefit.

[Blake's Baby]

You're not exactly saying much, here. How militant are they? How many/much more demonstrations, general strikes, direct action do they participate in compared to the workers in the US? Most likely more, no doubt, but not much more, certainly not in comparison to the working class of nations with a superexploited proletariat.

When the working class of various European nations start to organize and lash out at the exploiter class through direct class struggle maybe this will mean something, but in the mean time the vast majority of European working class people are just as lulled over by these concessions as the working class in the US.

Are you serious?

On one day, 14th November 2012, between 8 and 10 million European workers were on strike or taking part in the first Europe-wide general strike.

The UK (with a population 1/5 of the USA) 'lost' 1.35 million days to strikes in 2011. Did the US 'lose' 6.75 million strike days the same year?

In Germany (population 1/4 the US) 680,000 strike days were 'lost' in 2012. that would suggest that the strike figure in the US for that year might be about 2.72 million.

Figures for the USA are difficult to obtain, but I'd doubt that they were anything like this level. And Germany and the UK are very 'peaceful' compared to Spain, Greece, Italy and France.

[#FF0000]

Welfare and minimum wage are liberal inventions which were implemented exactly for the reason OP mentioned. Marx raged against them, especially in his address to the communist league....again...exactly for the reason OP states. Traditionally Marxists were opposed to the welfare state.

You have a source for that? Because I think you're taking some liberties there -- fighting for reforms is fine and, I think, necessary, because these battles are what you build a movement and a culture of resistance around. Reforms in themselves aren't what we're fighting for, obviously. Plus the idea that more pain = more revolutionary potential is incredibly simplistic and untrue seeing as, historically, people who are absolutely crushed and hyper-exploited rarely rise up in any effective manner. Slave rebellions, for example, were unfortunately rare in the United States and seldom accomplished anything for the participants.

EDIT: really glad Blake's Baby came in with numbers to back up what I thought would be common knowledge.

[Blake's Baby]

No, Marx didn't rage against welfare and minimum wage campaigns, in fact he famously spoke against those who argued that wage increases didn't benefit workers. I'm sure someone better versed in Marxian scholarship than I will be along in a moment to quote the exact pamphlet from 1862 on the controversy with Henderson or Williamson or whatever the chap's name was.

However, the last point - 'traditionally marxists were opposed to the welfare state' is not at all in the same league of wrong, as there were Marxist groups who opposed the introduction of the welfare state in the UK, such as the SPGB, who argued that in fact it was a way of lowering wages and making health-care (ie, providing a workforce healthy enough to work) cheaper for capitalism.

[PhoenixAsh]

No, Marx didn't rage against welfare and minimum wage campaigns, in fact he famously spoke against those who argued that wage increases didn't benefit workers. I'm sure someone better versed in Marxian scholarship than I will be along in a moment to quote the exact pamphlet from 1862 on the controversy with Henderson or Williamson or whatever the chap's name was.

However, the last point - 'traditionally marxists were opposed to the welfare state' is not at all in the same league of wrong, as there were Marxist groups who opposed the introduction of the welfare state in the UK, such as the SPGB, who argued that in fact it was a way of lowering wages and making health-care (ie, providing a workforce healthy enough to work) cheaper for capitalism.

Yes...actually he did.




However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable. The demands of petty-bourgeois democracy summarized here are not expressed by all sections of it at once, and in their totality they are the explicit goal of only a very few of its followers. The further particular individuals or fractions of the petty bourgeoisie advance, the more of these demands they will explicitly adopt, and the few who recognize their own programme in what has been mentioned above might well believe they have put forward the maximum that can be demanded from the revolution. But these demands can in no way satisfy the party of the proletariat. While the democratic petty bourgeois want to bring the revolution to an end as quickly as possible, achieving at most the aims already mentioned, it is our interest and our task to make the revolution permanent until all the more or less propertied classes have been driven from their ruling positions, until the proletariat has conquered state power and until the association of the proletarians has progressed sufficiently far – not only in one country but in all the leading countries of the world – that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases and at least the decisive forces of production are concentrated in the hands of the workers. Our concern cannot simply be to modify private property, but to abolish it, not to hush up class antagonisms but to abolish classes, not to improve the existing society but to found a new one. There is no doubt that during the further course of the revolution in Germany, the petty-bourgeois democrats will for the moment acquire a predominant influence.

etc. etc.

[Blake's Baby]

The whole thrust of Value, Prices and Profits - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ (an 1865, not 1862, work composed of a refutation of the notions of someone called Weston, not Williamson) - completely refute the idea that wage-rises are contrary to the interests of the proletariat (an idea currently espoused by Ron Paul and Paul Ryan).

I agree that if, in a revolutionary situation, the demand for a higher minimum wage is raised, it is likely to be an attempt to distract the working class from the overthrow of the state and capitalism. But I really don't think that's what's happening at the moment.

[PhoenixAsh]

The whole thrust of Value, Prices and Profits - http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/ (an 1865, not 1862, work composed of a refutation of the notions of someone called Weston, not Williamson) - completely refute the idea that wage-rises are contrary to the interests of the proletariat (an idea currently espoused by Ron Paul and Paul Ryan).

I agree that if, in a revolutionary situation, the demand for a higher minimum wage is raised, it is likely to be an attempt to distract the working class from the overthrow of the state and capitalism. But I really don't think that's what's happening at the moment.

I have the severe first world problem of having forgotten my power cord for my laptop. I know...:glare:

But I agree what is happening now and what Marx stated back in 1948 at his address to the communist league (which I quoted and predates your quote...from a work I haven't read lately...so his views then probably changed) is completely different.

Welfare and minimum wage questions as part of a welfare state were raised first by Bismarck in his attempts to combat immigration, bolster productivity in Germany and turn back the rising support for
socialism.

With the fall of the USSR and "the Eastern Block" socialism stopped being a viable alternative and there was no immediate threat from "socialist" countries. There is no longer a need for a expanded welfare state and thus social aid and welfare is being reduced ever since the 90's all over Europe an stripped to its bare necessity.

Protests in Europe more often than not do not focus on introducing welfare or increasing welfare but in restoring what has been taken from welfare. Although European workers are generally speaking without a doubt more militant than US workers...this militancy is confined within social democratic demands...even the socialist/Marxist unions seem to function within the definitions of a capitalist society. I know this is a gross simplification and nuances are definitely there...but by and large...they are just an expression of certain parts of the bourgeois contradictory interests.

I am not really familiar with the US welfare system but as I understand it is a token system in comparison withe what large parts of western Europe now have (which is already reduced in the last decades).

I am not arguing that demands for welfare and protection of the welfare state are not an absolute must. But I am arguing that in most original Marxist and Anarchists theories the welfare state was objected against because it undermined revolutionary interest and potential....and that that is the reason why economic liberals introduced the system in the first place.

So there is credence to OP's question and it is not a strange one to ask.

[Ocean Seal]

Do reformist policies like the minimum wage stand in the way of the self-destruction of capitalism by improving the living conditions of the working class?
No when the working class is broken and can't assemble they are prey to fascism, but instead when conditions improve they become aware of their own power tend to lean left.

[PhoenixAsh]

No when the working class is broken and can't assemble they are prey to fascism, but instead when conditions improve they become aware of their own power tend to lean left.

I am not sure of this....given the rise of nationalism and far right groups in the political spectrum all around Europe. I think the link between far right and fascism and welfare is a bit more complex....and might be tied to economic cycli rather than welfare.

In better times though...when welfare was at its peak...we also saw a sharp decline in revolutionary spirit...as well as a drop in fascism. Now that the economic down fall has increased tensions and increased costs of welfare are used as an argument to reduce them...we see a sharp increase in anti capitalist sentiments both left and right.

[Illegalitarian]

"Boss-napping" is literally a thing in France that people get away with and workers in a french plant literally set bombs on extremely expensive equipment and threatened to blow it up if they didn't get a massive severance package (they got it).

Was this an exception, or a regular occurrence in the area? Was it in response to exploitation or due to economic downturn and losing a few of the benefits afforded to developed world workers? (it was, which they got, and then stopped protesting)


I'm not trying to say all developed world workers are a part of some mass labour aristocracy, but until the bourgeois start pushing down hard, we're not going to see any mass action of importance, and what will eventually force them to start this intensified class warfare is likely an intensification from below, as we're starting to see become more and more popular.


@Blake Where are these strikes now? They can be easily quelled with concessions here or there, but they're not so easy to get rid of in the underdeveloped nations as this is the part of the world where the profits are made that allow the bourgeois to give these concessions to the working class of western europe and America.

I'm not making an argument for blanket labor aristocracy, I'm just pointing out that our struggles are inexorably linked and it's not likely that one of these intensifies and becomes meaningful until the others do.

[Zanters]

I believe that minimum wage does delay the revolution. It allows the proletariat to be content with the current capitalistic system, distinguishing the flame. I also feel the same about liberal unions that push for reforms without spreading revolutionary thought.

Why would the bourgeoisies allow unions if they knew it would lead to their destruction quicker? Instead of far right capitalism, we get this liberal capitalism, appeasing to those who are not revolutionary/communistic.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I believe that minimum wage does delay the revolution. It allows the proletariat to be content with the current capitalistic system, distinguishing the flame. I also feel the same about liberal unions that push for reforms without spreading revolutionary thought.

Why would the bourgeoisies allow unions if they knew it would lead to their destruction quicker? Instead of far right capitalism, we get this liberal capitalism, appeasing to those who are not revolutionary/communistic.

They don't allow them most of the time - where they have been established against repressive and ideological attacks by the ruling class, capitalism just adapts to them - co-opting them if they can, splitting them or otherwise undermining them when they can't, and direct repression when they must.

Capitalism is extremely adaptive and so anything that doesn't lead to working class revolution, will be incorporated or slowly eroded or adapted to by capitalism. Reforms and just general expectations by workers (French workers, hell US workers from 40 years ago, would riot if they suddenly faced the conditions that US workers now accept with a sad shrug and grumble) can be a sort of high-water mark though, a legacy from the past wave of class struggle, the basic terrain that informs the terrain for new struggles. I don't think the reforms themselves put a break on struggles necessarily; though with a narrow enough focus liberal efforts for reforms often try and emphasize the one-issue nature of it and actively downplay any wider ramifications in terms of class and that can lead to confusion or demoralization. Anyway, I think historically reforms won through struggles actually help increase the confidence of people to fight for more. I think any dampening effect is probably more from struggles plateauing, being repressed, or being self limited from the start by liberal leadership. People see the reforms won, but if they think that's the limit of it, or when they see how it's eroded or de-fanged or co-opted then demoralization or cynicism becomes more common imo.

In short I think people can be discontent with or without reforms, people can be discontent and it can provoke militancy or desperation and docileness. The bigger factor imo is what people think is possible in relation to what they have the organizational ability to do something about it. This is why in the US for example you can have militancy both when people are desperate like in the first or second depressions -- but you can also have militancy in times of lots of reforms, relatively less inequality, and much better wages like in the 1970s.