Is there an American working class?

[Andy Bowden]

Here is a chance for the MIM supporters to argue for their theories on Revleft - and for Trotskyists, Anarchists and others to argue against them.

To complicate matters a little,

Has there always been a USA proletariat, or did it "die out?" If it did die out - when, and if there has never been an American working class then why were there attacks on miners in the USA by the Bourgeois - a place called Matewan springs to mind.

Also, is it just in America that there is a Labour aristocracy, or does it include all the western nations as well? Eg UK, France Ireland etc.

[Eastside Revolt]

Of course there is a labour aristocracy in all or at least most western nations. The conclusion that there is no proletariate can only come from a long time crack addiction, where one has lost all bearing in reality. :P

Do you work in order not to starve? Were your parents in the same situation? Will you childeren be in the same situation?

If yes to all 3, you are working class. It's that simple.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

The position of your parents and future position of your children doesn't matter to your class. I am definatly workingclass, but my parents are from middle upperclass families. The only thing that matters is your relation to the means of production.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jul 1 2005, 10:50 PM
The position of your parents and future position of your children doesn't matter to your class. I am definatly workingclass, but my parents are from middle upperclass families. The only thing that matters is your relation to the means of production.
Maybe you fell down into the working class, but generally, those who are born into the working class stay there.

[romanm]

IRTR will answer this at marxleninmao.proboards43.com ..

We have an open challenge to anyone. You don't even have to register to post in our economics section.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:56 PM
IRTR will answer this at marxleninmao.proboards43.com ..

We have an open challenge to anyone. You don't even have to register to post in our economics section.
No, I like an answer now from you.

What is your definition of a proletariate or working class?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by redcanada+Jul 1 2005, 11:55 PM--> (redcanada @ Jul 1 2005, 11:55 PM)
Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jul 1 2005, 10:50 PM
The position of your parents and future position of your children doesn't matter to your class. I am definatly workingclass, but my parents are from middle upperclass families. The only thing that matters is your relation to the means of production.
Maybe you fell down into the working class, but generally, those who are born into the working class stay there. [/b]
True in general, not always. Thus it makes your strict definition flawed.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+Jul 1 2005, 11:10 PM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ Jul 1 2005, 11:10 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 11:55 PM

Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jul 1 2005, 10:50 PM
The position of your parents and future position of your children doesn't matter to your class. I am definatly workingclass, but my parents are from middle upperclass families. The only thing that matters is your relation to the means of production.
Maybe you fell down into the working class, but generally, those who are born into the working class stay there.
True in general, not always. Thus it makes your strict definition flawed. [/b]
I never called it the only definition of working class. It is though, by far the most common. And it definitely is the possition of the majority of the population, to say the isn't a working class seems rather out of touch with reality.

[redstar2000]

Some thoughts on this question...

The "Labor Aristocracy", the "Middle Class", and Marxist Theory (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083626854&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Saint-Just]

On the question of when the proletariat in the U.S. disappeared or if ther ever was one [quoted from MIM]:

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/...iteobservor.TXT (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/wim/wyl/crypto/text.php?mimfile=hoxhaiteobservor.TXT)

As to when the white proletariat disappeared,
Sakai has said there never was one. There is some
sense to that because the "settlers" always had a
kind of petty-bourgeois status as Marx pointed
out. Through the generations, whites have handed
down wealth in land or equivalent inheritances
robbed from First Nations and denied to Blacks.
Although there are some writers that say the
"Homestead Act" did not apply for all whites, we
believed they missed the point about general white
access to First Nation land and we have to account
for the fact that there will always be a white
lumpen as well. Because whites used to be
dominated by farm and industrial sector work, we
said that we understand why the CP-USA organized
the CIO in the Depression and tried that road, but
ultimately the CP-USA succeeded in eliminating the
white proletariat with the help of FDR and World
War II. We feel assured in saying so now that we
know Stalin briefly approved theses saying that
Amerikkkans had no industrial proletariat before
World War II. The Amerikan victory in World War
II and all the global spoils that went with that
were key to labor aristocracy domination and as
you noted, the French "workers" proved they had
"made it" in 1968, and that they were going to be
every bit as parasitic as Amerikkkans. Another
important date is the 1980 Census which showed
that more than half of U.$. whites had white-
collar jobs. The point is that one could disagree
on the cut-off date, but the evidence has done
nothing but pile up since World War II.


Simply looking at a few articles from MIM can reveal the following. [MIM believes that the only real working class in the U.S. are] 'the orange, strawberry and flower pickers getting paid a dollar an hour and the sweatshop workers.'

MIM say the following 'The Euro-Amerikan "working" class we have already shown fit in what Marx said in the "Communist Manifesto," "the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed be swept out of the way, and made impossible."

MIM believes the Euro-Amerikan "working" class is actually petty-bourgeoisie and allied with imperialism.

They point to the quote below saying that whole countries become parasitic:
"The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies." V. I. Lenin, ITAL Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism END (Peking: Foreign Language Press, 1973), p. 120.

I have read some of MIM's more thorough analysis on these questions, but their articles tend to be quite difficult to find.

[YKTMX]

It's a totally stupid question. I'd imagine that the only people who would posit "yes" would be young, middle class third worldists because:

a) They have no or little knowledge of working class life so they have no basis on which to judge

b) It appeals to a streak of the "guilts" in them

c) It absolves them from judging their own class position.


The MIM are all fucking nuts, their "theories" are barmy and all their supporters are slabbery, quote reading cretins.

[Hiero]

There is not doubt that the working class in the US have reaped the bonus that comes with imperialism, the high standard of living in the US compared to other 3rd world countries is a product of imperialism.

While i do agree there is a working class, but the real question is there a militant or possibility of a militant working class in the US or any other 1st world country? My answer is no.

[symtoms_of_humanity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 01:25 PM
There is not doubt that the working class in the US have reaped the bonus that comes with imperialism, the high standard of living in the US compared to other 3rd world countries is a product of imperialism.

While i do agree there is a working class, but the real question is there a militant or possibility of a militant working class in the US or any other 1st world country? My answer is no.
I agree with you, there is a high standard of living, and most of the working class is comforatable, but at the same time many are poor, and that rate is increasing

[KickMcCann]

There is of course a working class in the United States, though its a little harder to define. Working-class is not exclusively the domain of blue collar workers, it is reasonable to include white-collar workers for they are just as disconnected from their labor and its result as a blue collar worker.

Anyway, The US has and has always had a large working class, but today it has almost no class consciousness.

Lets start from the beginning-

When the aristocratic white europeans finally established long-term settlements in North America they brought along an enormous work force of African slaves and European indentured servants.
&nsbp;&nsbp; The contrast between working and ruling classes were blatently stark, as a result class confict quickly developed between the rich whites and the white servants and black servants. At the time, the poor whites and blacks lived together and worked together, even developing friendships and families together.
&nsbp;&nsbp; If revolution were to break out, the ruling class would quickly perish as they were vastly outnumbered by their servants. In order to destroy the threat of revolt they divided their servants and destroyed the threat. They did this by giving extra rights and preferential treatment to the white workers, setting them on an economic and political level higher than the African slaves, but still far below the level of the ruling class.
&nsbp;&nsbp; In effect this patronization created a false sense of brotherhood between the rich and poor whites, the poor whites looked up the the rich as their benefactors and friends, turning their backs on their African comrades in support of the rich.
&nsbp;&nsbp;
&nsbp;&nsbp;This was the ingenious creation of the middle-class, a buffer zone to preserve the capitalist ruling class. The fact that the anger of the working-class was focused into racism by the ruling class is incosequential, if there had been no African slaves the ruling class would have still found a way to divide the working class.

In the long term this development had the effect of disassociating the working class from class consciousness, the white workers no longer saw themselves as exploited workers, but as "citizens" of a republic with every opportunity for upward mobility.

&nsbp;&nsbp; Today racism in the US is gradually fading away, people of all ethnicities identify themselves as members of the middle class, the catylst for repressing class consciousness is no longer racism, it has been replaced by consumerism, nationalism, and dishonest education. The mainstream political debates in the US are focused entirely on liberal/conservative cultural issues, and never the issues of class and rights.

&nsbp;&nsbp;But for us Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists there is a glimmer of hope beyond the shadows. Without the existance of a strong leftist movement or class consciousness, the American ruling class is currently getting away with the gradual removal of laws and rights won in times of class consciousness. At the same time the ruling class itself is removing the regulations created by FDR's "New Deal" which was put in place to "save capitalism from itself".

&nsbp;&nsbp;Just as it happened before, you can expect the American capitalists to run their entire system into the ground, destroying themeselves in their pursuit of unsustainable profit. But in contrast to 1929, the American populace is no longer divided by racism or sexism, we actually have come along way in that respect comrades.

&nsbp;&nsbp;When the shit hits the fan, the American people will be forced back into reality, back into class consciousness, and it won't be pretty. When the American people finally wake up, they won't be happy, and if history is any indicator, you can expect to see riots in the streets and mansions being burnt to the ground.
&nsbp;&nsbp;If and when this happens, we in America on the left must be prepared to speak out, know our history and refuse to make the mistakes that were made before. No giving in to concessions or falling into the trap of fighting each other.

Though perhaps its important to remember that the US ruling class always has a potential world war on its back burner, if revolt begins to brew in the States, there's a good chance the ruling class will try to start a war somewhere in order to re-corral the people under their flag of patriotism and nationalism.

So yes, the USA has a majority working class, only the American working class is for the most part, completely unaware of its own existance ;)

[Hiero]

Originally posted by symtoms_of_humanity+Jul 3 2005, 10:28 AM--> (symtoms_of_humanity @ Jul 3 2005, 10:28 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 01:25 PM
There is not doubt that the working class in the US have reaped the bonus that comes with imperialism, the high standard of living in the US compared to other 3rd world countries is a product of imperialism.

While i do agree there is a working class, but the real question is there a militant or possibility of a militant working class in the US or any other 1st world country? My answer is no.
I agree with you, there is a high standard of living, and most of the working class is comforatable, but at the same time many are poor, and that rate is increasing [/b]
Yes and this is what Working Class parties should concentrate on, rather then organising for political power or revolution.

[Vanguard1917]

The theories of the "labour aristocracy" seem to be very popular within American revolutionary parties, particularly Maoist. Some are even going as far as to say that the almost entire white working class in the US belongs to the "labour aristocracy". I believe that the theory is essentially a cop-out attitude. Having failed to win workers over to progressive causes, such "Marxist" parties can comfort themselves with such ideas. In reality, it is such parties themselves that are proving to be ineffectual in directing revolutionary change, not the working class.

We can have endless discussions about "objective economic conditions" and how they effect class consciousness. But in the absense of a revolutionary workers' party, revolutionary class consciousness is not going to come about, regardless of the economic conditions. The party is central in this sense. As Marx says, "Every class struggle is a political struggle." The vast majority of American society belong to the working class - according to where they stand in the process of production (afterall, class is not defined by table-manners). However, for those of us who believe in the revolutionary transformation of society, this "objective fact" is not enough. If left to spontaneity, this working class will never be a revolutionary class in capitalist society. It comes back to the old communist dictum: without a revolutionary party, there can be no revolutionary class. This "subjective" element - i.e. the party - is extremely important.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
But in the absence of a revolutionary workers' party, revolutionary class consciousness is not going to come about, regardless of the economic conditions.

You seemed to have learned the "formulas"...now, the next step is to critically examine them.

Are they true?

WHY?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Redstar, it's quite difficult to have a debate with you on this because I don't really know where you stand on certain key issues. (I know you have a website, but the way the text is layed out is sketchy and hence difficult to read. I think you should consider collecting your ideas and writing them down in a more structured, essay-style form.) For example, the role of party and politics, spontaneity, economic determinism, Lenin, etc.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 05:52 AM
The MIM are all fucking nuts, their "theories" are barmy and all their supporters are slabbery, quote reading cretins.
Couldnt have said it better myself.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:33 PM
I believe that the theory is essentially a cop-out attitude. Having failed to win workers over to progressive causes, such "Marxist" parties can comfort themselves with such ideas. In reality, it is such parties themselves that are proving to be ineffectual in directing revolutionary change, not the working class.
Bingo. Blaming the class is often a way of covering the shortcomings of a party.

Though let's not overestimate the effect even a small party can have regardless of objective conditions. The reason class consciousness is in many ways lower in the U.S. than even in other imperialist countries, isn't because they have better parties in those other countries. IMO the mass reformist parties are actually an obstacle we're lucky not to have here.

(And certainly it's not because workers are more privileged here than in western Europe! The reverse is true.) There are a lot of historical factors involved.

It's just that when left radicals start writing off workers' potential role, ignoring the struggles than are going on, and painting the level of consciousness as uniformly reactionary, etc., that usually says more about those left radicals than about the working class.


But in the absense of a revolutionary workers' party, revolutionary class consciousness is not going to come about, regardless of the economic conditions.

Communist consciousness isn't, agreed. But I think larger developments and mass struggles are going to play a bigger role, in the next stages of developing class consciousness, than any small party's propaganda or even involvement in the mass struggle. Though those can play a role out of proportion to the party's size, even in the development of a mass struggle...

[Black Dagger]

...but the real question is there a militant or possibility of a militant working class in the US or any other 1st world country? My answer is no.

Then what is the future of the communist movement in the 'first world'? Inescapable failure?

[Vanguard1917]

There are a lot of historical factors involved.

I definately agree. Parties and their leaders are largely shaped by the historical circumstances in which they find themselves. However there are times when certain historical conditions give rise to certain opportunities. If the leaders of the working class are not up to the revolutionary challenges that they are faced with, then such opportunities will, surely, be missed. We have to ask ourselves, have such opportunities been missed in the US, as they certainly have been elsewhere?

I've been reading some of the works of Lukacs, a Hungarian Leninist politically active during the time of the Hungarian revolution of 1919. I would definately recommend them to anyone who hasn't already read them. It's very relevant to what we are discussing. There are a couple of important essays in his classic book History and Class Consciousness. It is by far the most challenging read that I've come across since I attempted Capital a couple of years ago. The book was heavily criticised at the time. Lukacs wrote a defence of his book Tailism and the Dialectic which was discovered quite recently in some archive somewhere and only got translated into English in the early 1990s. This is the book that I would definately recommend. It's a lot more direct in style and a lot less "philosophical". They say that he heavily influenced the Frankfurt School, but I think his ideas are much more a philosophical backing of Lenin's political ideas - especially the theory of the party and its role in the development of revolutionary class consciousness in the working class - as John Rees argues in the introduction. If anyone has read any of Lukacs's writings, tell me what you think of him. There are certain aspects of his ideas that I am kind of in two minds about.

[riverotter]

There definitely is a labor aristocracy in this country - all those red white and blue-collar workers in traditionally proletarian fields. They've been bought off with salaries (and benefits) that keep them comfortable and complacent. But there plenty of others who don't work in those traditional prol fields (maids, McDonalds slaves, migrant farm workers, sweatshop workers) who are the back-bone of the US proletariat.

And let's not forget that the labor aristocracy is slowly losing all those perks, along with the rest of us here in the US.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 02:53 PM
There definitely is a labor aristocracy in this country - all those red white and blue-collar workers in traditionally proletarian fields.
That's a sweeping generalization that can only be based on ignorance. Some blue-collar workers are very well-paid, to the point of being labor aristocracy. Others are moderately paid. Some are very poorly paid, have few or no benefits, and are subjected to backbreaking work conditions. This last category even includes some union members.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 05:54 AM

There are a lot of historical factors involved.

I definately agree. Parties and their leaders are largely shaped by the historical circumstances in which they find themselves.
I was more pointing out that the class and its consciousness were shaped by historical factors.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
However there are times when certain historical conditions give rise to certain opportunities. If the leaders of the working class are not up to the revolutionary challenges that they are faced with, then such opportunities will, surely, be missed.

And how is one to detect the presence of these "certain opportunities"?

You see here the Leninist conceit that they and they alone are "qualified" to uncover these mysterious, not to say ghostly, "opportunities" -- perhaps by their "mastery" of the "dialectic".

We rank amateurs (not to say just plain dummies) should therefore concern ourselves only with the problem of locating the correct leadership and then just do whatever they tell us to do.

Hey, what could be easier?

Unfortunately, the Leninist track record -- especially in the advanced capitalist countries -- has been...disappointing.

The "opportunities" have come and gone -- like the "spirits" of the dead -- and we find ourselves still in the shit.

All of our Leninist "great leaders" have let us down...either failing to detect these "opportunities" or bungling their "big chance".

Like the old saying has it: if the working class wants the job done right, it will have to do it itself.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Malone]

The MIM are all fucking nuts, their "theories" are barmy and all their supporters are slabbery, quote reading cretins.

The labor aristocracy isn't solely a MIM "theory" though, it's heard throughout most Marxist writers since the birth of Imperialism.

[redstar2000]

What the advocates of the "labor aristocracy" have never shown me is why, from the standpoint of Marxist economics, a capitalist class should ever, under any circumstances, pay any worker more than its socially necessary cost of reproduction.

Either labor power exchanges at the average social cost of its reproduction or it doesn't...and if the latter is the case -- if capitalists can routinely "bribe" very large numbers of workers at its discretion -- then the labor theory of value is just meaningless crap.

The exchange value of labor power becomes entirely contingent on the whim of the capitalist class. A "caring" and "generous" capitalist class can pay a whole lot; a "mean" and "stingy" capitalist class can "hog it all".

An "enlightened" capitalist can pay a premium for "class peace"; a "short-sighted" capitalist pays as close to nothing for labor-power as he can...and relies heavily on armed force to stop workers from organizing.

Certainly there are limited and temporary exceptions to the labor theory of value. A capitalist monopoly/oligopoly can pay somewhat higher wages and make up the difference in monopoly pricing. A very tough and militant trade union can recover some of the surplus value that would otherwise be lost to the capitalists...at least for a while.

And, of course, capitalists can employ illegal workers and pay them less than the social cost of reproduction. But other capitalists consider this to be "unfair competition" and will usually call upon the state apparatus to put a stop to it. Only in agriculture are significant numbers of illegals employed and then only during the harvest season.

In terms of Marxist economics, the whole idea of a "bribed labor aristocracy" just doesn't make any sense.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

The labor aristocracy isn't solely a MIM "theory" though, it's heard throughout most Marxist writers since the birth of Imperialism.

Yes, I agree there. However, their theory that the populations of whole countries can become "labor aristocracies" is very much their own.


What the advocates of the "labor aristocracy" have never shown me is why, from the standpoint of Marxist economics, a capitalist class should ever, under any circumstances, pay any worker more than its socially necessary cost of reproduction.

Presumably to create a stable capitalism after the second world war in order to avoid a repeat of post-WW1 radicalism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Presumably to create a stable capitalism after the second world war in order to avoid a repeat of post-WW1 radicalism.

But, you see, that's not an "economic" reason.

It implies that "somehow" the capitalist class "got together" and said to one another something like "we are going to pay our working class more than they are really worth so they won't turn communist on us".

And it has to be a "class-wide conspiracy" to work; otherwise, some capitalists will "cheat" and thus out-compete the capitalists who stick to the agreement.

For example, a minimum-wage law is just such an agreement (if it is vigorously enforced) -- it tells all capitalists that you can't compete by paying workers less than X. If the minimum wage were actually above the average social cost of reproduction for labor, then it would really be a "bribe".

But, of course, that's never been the case; the minimum wage has always been too low to allow labor to reproduce itself. One person can survive on minimum wage...barely. A couple, both with minimum wage jobs, who try to raise two kids (reproducing the next generation of minimum wage workers), cannot do it. At least in my estimate. The two kids they raise, if both survive to working age, will not be qualified for even minimum-wage work -- they will be petty-criminals, live on welfare, perhaps hold occasional jobs, etc. They are likely to be physically unhealthy and virtually illiterate, etc.

In other words, if the labor theory of value is correct, then over-all wages are determined by objective economic conditions...not by the "generosity" or "meanness" of the capitalist class and not by "enlightened self-interest" or "short-sighted greediness" either.

Of course, if you scrap the labor theory of value, that changes things entirely. Wages then become determined according to "free market" theory...capitalists can, in principle, pay workers any wage they wish as long as it's not substantially in excess of the wages paid by its competitors...and, of course, provided that the wage-bill does not exceed the exchange value of whatever goods or services the workers produce.

There might be room in "free market" theory for an outright "bribe"...but I think it would be a very small room -- a closet, perhaps.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

It implies that "somehow" the capitalist class "got together" and said to one another something like "we are going to pay our working class more than they are really worth so they won't turn communist on us".

Is that so far fetched? I'm not suggesting it was conscious but perhaps it was. We know that the capitalist must pay the worker a wage that will "reproduce his labour power". Now, we always presume this means that "all" the worker must be able to do is keep him and his family alive. What the American ruling class realised was that if capitalism was to survive it needed to both co-opt and marginalise the labor movement but also offer real improvements. I think what we saw was a realisation that a partial re-distribution of "purchasing power" might be good not only for profit, but also for stability.

What I think we need to realise is that capitalists have class interests beyond profit - if we can do that I think we can get somewhere. Marx always said that it's not that capitalist are "bad people", it's that exploitation and competition is inherent to the system. What I think he never really got a handle was the possibility that the state could not only represent capitalist interests but also defend capitalism from itself. It's quite clear that the post-war West, with it's Keynesian economics and strong welfarism, was both better for workers and better for capitalists.

[shadows]

MIM's reactionary views of the U.S. proletariat (that it doesn't exist, and hasn't existed for some time) assigns all potential for revolution externally to the proletarian 'third world'. No surplus value extraction in the U.S., I guess, and workers receive more or at least as much as they exchange for their labor in production. This violent re-working of Marx does away with the internal and necessary contradictions of surplus value extraction, fails to explain the fetishism of commodities so rampant today and evidenced in consumers lusting after products in proportion to the poverty in social relations, and is reminiscent of the turn away from Hegel and toward Kant that occurred among some neo-Marxists such as Colletti and Althusser (less so in the latter than in the former) in the seventies: simple oppositions, not contradictions are deployed to explain capitalism.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 07:37 AM
And, of course, capitalists can employ illegal workers and pay them less than the social cost of reproduction. But other capitalists consider this to be "unfair competition" and will usually call upon the state apparatus to put a stop to it. Only in agriculture are significant numbers of illegals employed and then only during the harvest season.
It's been a long time since you've worked in industry, hasn't it? I assure you that employing undocumented workers is commonplace and widespread in meatpacking, garment, construction, and other industries. I recently heard about a huge chicken plant in North Carolina - so huge it is its own town - where if you're fired, you buy a new social security number and get rehired as someone else. Of course the bosses know you're the same person, they just don't care.

And workplace raids have become less common in recent years; la migra is concentrating on "controlling the border".

I don't know that undocumented workers are paid less than the cost of reproducing labor power, though; people have children, send money back to relatives in Mexico, etc.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 10 2005, 12:05 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 10 2005, 12:05 PM)
YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Presumably to create a stable capitalism after the second world war in order to avoid a repeat of post-WW1 radicalism.

But, you see, that's not an "economic" reason.

It implies that "somehow" the capitalist class "got together" and said to one another something like "we are going to pay our working class more than they are really worth so they won't turn communist on us".

And it has to be a "class-wide conspiracy" to work; otherwise, some capitalists will "cheat" and thus out-compete the capitalists who stick to the agreement.

For example, a minimum-wage law is just such an agreement (if it is vigorously enforced) -- it tells all capitalists that you can't compete by paying workers less than X. If the minimum wage were actually above the average social cost of reproduction for labor, then it would really be a "bribe". [/b]
Right. You raise a good and interesting argument here. It's a challenge not just for MIM's craziness, but for the older Marxist idea that imperialism makes it possible for a layer of the working class to be "bribed" as a labor aristocracy.

I think this doesn't have to imply a conscious decision of the ruling class as a whole; it could also mean economic conditions that make it easier for a section of the working class to obtain privileged conditions. I can think of two that sometimes apply.

One, if a boss is doing well, profits are high, its easier to extract something from him or her. It's the decline in the rate of profit that's behind the bosses' drive to reduce wages, bust unions, etc., over the past couple decades. So one could argue the profits from imperialism and the post-WWII U.S. near-monopoly of some manufactured goods on the world market, made it easier for sections of the working class to gain better conditions with less of a struggle, during the 50s and 60s.

Two, if a group has a semi-monopoly on a type of skilled labor. There are extreme cases of professionals who have artificial monopolies like this; for example a scarcity of doctors is maintained by the medical schools, the AMA, and the government. Of course doctors have never been considered part of the working class, but some of them are getting a price for their labor and that artificial scarcity is part of the reason it's so high.

Craft unions, licensing requirements, etc, have sometimes helped groups of skilled workers to do the same to a far smaller degree. To some extent the state through regulation may help them do this. Or the state and employers through racist and sexist discrimination - some craft unions have traditionally maintained a "white male job trust" to keep up the price of a particular type of skilled labor. That's in narrow and specialized parts of the labor market.

[redstar2000]

Lots of interesting stuff here...


Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)Now, we always presume this means that "all" the worker must be able to do is keep him and his family alive. What the American ruling class realised was that if capitalism was to survive it needed to both co-opt and marginalise the labor movement but also offer real improvements. I think what we saw was a realisation that a partial re-distribution of "purchasing power" might be good not only for profit, but also for stability.[/b]

I can see the process you describe taking place in a particular (large) corporation. As long ago as 1915 or so, Henry Ford trashed "conventional business wisdom" by paying auto workers $5.00/day...an astonishing sum for that period. But Ford had other ideas as well -- he understood and utilized the full value of his machinery better than any other capitalist of his era. He made auto workers far more productive than they had ever been before.

By making cars cheap enough that the American middle classes could afford them, Ford's workers generated an enormous amount of surplus value by the standards of the time...and Ford could easily afford to pay the workers an amount substantially in excess of the socially-necessary wage to reproduce themselves.

This phenomenon crops up now and again throughout the history of capitalism. There's an old song that may go back to the beginning of the last century or even earlier. It advises a young woman to "marry a railroad boy" and you'll always "have a dollar in your pocket". When I was in my late teens, people in my class talked about IBM as "a great place to work". I'm sure that today there are plenty of young computer students who lust for a job at Microsoft.

But these are, by their very nature, temporary situations...prompted by the temporary "super-profitability" of a corporation or, occasionally, industry. At some point the rate of profit declines and then "it used to be a great place to work...now it's just crap like everywhere else".

For a "class-wide" redistribution of wealth, it seems to me that a law is required...otherwise, as I noted, some capitalists will inevitably cheat.


What I think we need to realise is that capitalists have class interests beyond profit - if we can do that I think we can get somewhere. Marx always said that it's not that capitalist are "bad people", it's that exploitation and competition is inherent to the system. What I think he never really got a handle was the possibility that the state could not only represent capitalist interests but also defend capitalism from itself.

I don't know...I think he understood that. Didn't he once refer to the capitalist state as "the Executive Committee of the capitalist class"?

I agree with you that capitalists must be regulated by a nominally external force representing the interests of the class as a whole...otherwise they'd ultimately end up murdering one another (as they sometimes do in Russia today).

But that's what the legal framework is for, right? If the capitalist class had ever made a decision to pay the working class "in general" more than it what was truly worth, there'd have to be laws in place to make that happen.

And I don't really see that. The welfare systems set up after World War II in Europe and North America basically apply to those members of the working class who would otherwise be destitute. The temporarily unemployed, the old, the disabled, children without a wage-earning father, etc. would all probably die without the welfare system.

Further, it could well be argued that welfare is financed by taxes on the working class itself. Prior to World War II, most workers in the U.S. did not earn enough to have to pay any income tax and sales taxes were very rare. Workers were first taxed to pay for World War II...and the rates have stayed up or risen higher ever since.

As to your larger proposition -- that capitalists have class interests other than profit -- I don't disagree with that, but I think that such interests are subordinate to considerations of profit. That is, a capitalist might accept a smaller return on investment now if it promised a greater return on investment in the future. But I don't think that the class as a whole is normally capable of such coherent decisions; only particular capitalists in a particular corporation or, at most, in a particular industry.


Originally posted by [email protected]
No surplus value extraction in the U.S., I guess, and workers receive more or at least as much as they exchange for their labor in production.

MIM's position, as I understand it, is that all "first world" workers are enormously overpaid -- the only exceptions they allow are prison laborers and undocumented aliens. Everyone else produces "negative surplus value" and all ruling class profit comes from "super-exploitation" of "third-world" workers -- who are employed at wages far below their replacement value. This situation is not temporary, in MIM's view, but is permanently enforced by client regimes using military repression to keep "third-world" wages from rising.

This is completely different from the capitalism of Marx's day and operates according to entirely different "rules".

Accordingly, there will be no domestic proletarian revolution in the "first world" ever -- what will happen, according to MIM, is that the "third world" will make socialist revolutions and then militarily conquer the "first world" and impose socialism on it.

Their "model" is the USSR's occupation of East Germany; they intend to enforce drastic reparations to the "third world" and a likewise drastic decline in working class standards-of-living in the "first world".

Compulsory vegetarianism is just one of the delightful "reforms" they have in store for us. (That's not a joke.)


Severian
I assure you that employing undocumented workers is commonplace and widespread in meatpacking, garment, construction, and other industries.

Well, nobody really knows, do they? The latest federal effort to turn drivers' licenses into de facto national identification cards would seem to make it much more difficult to employ illegal aliens on any significant scale.

But you could very well be right; once a capitalist employs a significant number of illegal aliens and gets away with it, other capitalists will jump in and do the same.

But it would only make sense to do that if there were separate pay scales for legals and illegals. And if such separate scales existed, then workers would learn of them and someone with a gripe would eventually "blow the whistle".

(There's an interesting problem with fake social security numbers. As you know, social security numbers follow the formula XXX-XX-XX-XX. If you randomly choose digits from 0 to 9 for each of those X's, you will pick a number that already has been assigned to someone or one that has not yet been assigned to anyone.

Every quarter, the employer is legally required to report the wages paid to each number. So when a fake number is reported that does not exist, the employer will get an inquiry from Social Security about the discrepancy.

If the number has already been assigned, then there may be no problem until income tax time rolls around...when there will be a discrepancy between the taxpayer's reported income and the income figure the IRS gets from Social Security. An inquiry is likely to be launched then.)


I don't know that undocumented workers are paid less than the cost of reproducing labor power, though; people have children, send money back to relatives in Mexico, etc.

Here again, we don't really know...although given the hazards of an illegal crossing, it's hard to imagine people bringing their kids along. Of course, some have children after they arrive.

If you leave your wife and kids in some Mexican village, then, of course, you can send enough money home to keep them alive (to reproduce your labor power).

But an illegal couple in the U.S. that has kids is going to have grave financial difficulties...I would not want to make even a small bet that they will not sink into destitution.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 10 2005, 09:06 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 10 2005, 09:06 PM)
Severian
I assure you that employing undocumented workers is commonplace and widespread in meatpacking, garment, construction, and other industries.

Well, nobody really knows, do they? [/b]
Speak for yourself. People who've worked in those industries know. There are estimates also, such as one from 2002 of 4% of the labor force, which I found while looking for info on another point. (http://www.themilitant.com/2002/6632/663265.html) This one is really to obvious to need extensive research or debate, my first reaction to your earlier post was "which planet are you from?"


The latest federal effort to turn drivers' licenses into de facto national identification cards would seem to make it much more difficult to employ illegal aliens on any significant scale.

No, it just means a lot of people will continue driving without licences. And major implications for democratic rights, but it ain't gonna put an end to the employment of undocumented workers.

That would be very unprofitable. The ruling class is going another way, with two "guest worker" proposals before Congress, (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6922/692203.html) one supported by Bush and the other by Kennedy and McCain. Bipartisan agreement on the resurrection of the Bracero program.


But it would only make sense to do that if there were separate pay scales for legals and illegals.

What? No. But the superexploitation of undocumented, rightless workers lowers wages for all workers. E.g. meatpacking don't pay much anymore. While simultaneously line speed has skyrocketed, and work injuries with it. As previously in U.S. history, the exploitation of immigrant labor is important to this process...and the fear of deportation is important to keeping immigrant workers in line.


Every quarter, the employer is legally required to report the wages paid to each number. So when a fake number is reported that does not exist, the employer will get an inquiry from Social Security about the discrepancy.

Yes, it's called a "no match" letter for short. There've been a number of articles in the Militant about the firings of undocumented workers on the excuse of these letters. This is one of the more recent. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6915/691502.html) Note one guy who worked eight years before getting fired; hopefully he'll last as long on his next job with his next SS number.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has essentially stopped fining employers for hiring undocumented workers. (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6926/692662.html)


Of course, some have children after they arrive.

So many that their right to send their (U.S. citizen) children to school was a major issue in a California referendum (Prop 187). Others encourage their families to join them after they've been here a while.

"About 3 million young U.S. citizens have at least one parent in the United States without proper immigration documents,"link (http://www.themilitant.com/2005/6910/691060.html)


But an illegal couple in the U.S. that has kids is going to have grave financial difficulties...I would not want to make even a small bet that they will not sink into destitution.

That's possible....but destitution by whose standards? Partly this gets into the socially determined nature of the value of labor-power.

***

All those links are to fact-packed articles in the Militant newspaper. Let me suggest this shows the advantages of regularly reading a paper by and for workers, which concerns itself with challenges facing millions of workers in this country and others.

Apparently reading the RCP's publications, etc., hasn't kept Redstar up to speed on even the most basic of facts on this issue.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Apparently reading the RCP's publications, etc., hasn't kept Redstar up to speed on even the most basic of facts on this issue.[/b]

Can't resist a "poke", can you? :lol:

I do not, as it happens, rely on RCP publications for my information...though I do participate on their message board.

Does the SWP have a message board?

You know, where they argue with common "sinners" like myself?


The Militant
A recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the number of workers without work permits to be less than 4 percent of the U.S. labor force.

Well, anybody can "estimate" anything they please -- it's just a fancy word meaning guess.

But let's assume that it's a "good guess" -- is an illegal work force of "less than 4 percent" of the total U.S. labor force enough to exert a measurable downward pressure on the socially-necessary price of labor power as a whole?

Perhaps it is in certain industries where illegals are concentrated...otherwise, I don't think so.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[riverotter]

(I'm resurrecting this thread because I was off the boards for a while and some interesting stuff's been written while I was gone.)


Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 10 2005, 06:05 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 10 2005, 06:05 PM)
YouKnowTheyMurderedX
There definitely is a labor aristocracy in this country - all those red white and blue-collar workers in traditionally proletarian fields.
That's a sweeping generalization that can only be based on ignorance. Some blue-collar workers are very well-paid, to the point of being labor aristocracy. Others are moderately paid. Some are very poorly paid, have few or no benefits, and are subjected to backbreaking work conditions. This last category even includes some union members.[/b]

You're right - it was phrased in a pretty sweeping way. I do believe that there are significant sections of the proletariat in this country that aren't part of the labor aristocracy... and those who used to be who are seeing their benefits eroding rapidly nowadays. And this often pushes them into the open arms of the reactionaries, in particular the Christian crazies (hence the burgeoning evangelical movement.)

And while I'm totally opposed to MIM's characterization of the US as some sort of monolithic labor aristocratic bastion of reaction I think they have a point that these are not the people who can be relied upon for revolution, at least at this time. Right now, the people who will be the backbone of revolution are those ground down at the very bottom of the wage scale - some of them are more proletarian, like the meat packers and migrant workers, but many are in service, like the hotel workers and McDonalds serfs.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by riverotter
Any capitalist who endangers the group will get taken out.

I don't have any problem with this view with regard to the political personnel of the capitalist state apparatus -- the same procedure takes place in the mafia.

But MIM's hypothesis requires something much more far-reaching than simply replacing an incompetent president.

Essentially, MIM is requiring the capitalist class to have voluntarily repealed the labor theory of value in the United States (and other "first world" countries).

Like the state legislature that once seriously debated a bill making pi equal to 3.0 in Tennessee. :lol:

If Marx was right, then that can't be done. Or at least it can't be done on the scale that MIM's hypothesis requires...nor for the period of time (50 years or more) that MIM's hypothesis also requires.

In my opinion, MIM has -- without saying so directly -- just trashed the labor theory of value altogether; replacing it with something along the lines of "wages are determined by the socially necessary amount to maintain class peace" (in the "first world") and "quasi-slavery" in the "third world".

It's not necessarily an incoherent view and one can read some of the evidence in such a way as to "justify" it -- but it's not Marxist in any sense that I understand the word.

And it would require a deep and on-going consensus among capitalist elites that I don't think can be supported by the available evidence.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif