Barack Obama's Patriot Employer Act

[chimx]

I was wondering what other people think about this legislation. Obviously it's far from being socialistic, revolutionary, or even reformist really. Still it strikes me as something that could be positive in a incremental sort of way.

For those unfamiliar with the bill:


The Patriot Employers legislation would provide a tax credit equal to 1% of taxable income to employers that:

* Invest in American jobs, by maintaining or increasing the number of full-time workers in America relative to the number of full-time workers outside of America AND by maintaining corporate headquarters in America if the company has ever been headquartered in America.

* Pay decent wages, by paying each worker an hourly wage that would ensure that a full-time worker would earn enough to keep a family of three out of poverty (at least $ 7.80 per hour).

* Prepare workers for retirement, by providing either a defined benefit plan OR a defined contribution plan that fully matches at least 5% of worker contributions for every employee.

* Provide health insurance, by paying at least 60% of each worker’s health care premiums.

* Support the troops, by paying the difference between regular salary and military salary for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called for active duty AND by continuing their health insurance coverage for the Guard member and his or her family.

Recently when he was campaigning in Ohio, he made a campaign promise to include on the list employers that take a neutral stance on any unionization campaigns.

Now, the main problem seems to be that this bill lacks any teeth whatsoever. Would a 1% tax break really be enough to deter outsourcing, anti-union campaigns, etc? I have my doubts, but it's nice to see Democrats actually discuss globalization from a semi-critical standpoint. It's a relief from the Clinton-era when we started pushing through free trade agreements.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

The devil's in the details. If you notice $7.8 isn't a living wage. In fact, its below the minimum wage in a number states. But yes 1 percent isn't gonna change a goddamned thing. Though if it gets passed, I guess some benefit will come of it. Though it would be silly if we actually lobbied or engaged in actions over this.

[chimx]

I was actually surprised to see it claim that $7.80 was a living wage too. It is an increase from minimum wage however. Most importantly is the %1 problem.


Though it would be silly if we actually lobbied or engaged in actions over this.

Would you lobby to increase the tax relief percentage?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

It's an increase of the federal wage, but in DC and NY the min wage is well about that.

Nah. In order to effectively change federal policy you need 1 of 2 things. 1. A mass movement engaging in direct action, raising the social cost if its demands aren't being met. If we had this then the tax percentage is a minor matter, we'd be asking for a guaranteed social wage. 2. Your traditional letter writing, ngo policy advocacy campaign. This requires enormous resources that I feel would be better spent on real organizing. Though if someone is already doing it I wouldn't snub going to a rally or signing a card.

Much like EFCA, its a nice step, but I think we can have more results if we focused more on organizing and action. Especially if we're thinking about building class confidence and revolutionary organization. In the long term all reforms can be overturned, only strong organization can keep the hounds at bay.

[chimx]

only strong organization can keep the hounds at bay.

I agree. But this legislation is aimed at easing the problems of organization, similarly to EFCA. As a syndicalist, don't you think its important to support legislation that better enables laborers to collectively struggle for improved conditions?

[KrazyRabidSheep]

I think as long as legislature that is proposed is better then the status quo, not matter how insignificantly better, it is a good thing.

Also, that $7.80 wage thing makes me feel like a fat-cat with my salary (that's right, wage-slaves, I make a salary!) :D

[BobKKKindle$]

Firstly, regardless of whether this bill is actually positive, the one percent reduction offered is unlikely to be sufficient, firms will not change the amount they pay employees, especially if they currently pay significantly below the living wage figure, for such a small tax reduction.

Even if this problem did not exist, however, this bill should not be seen as progressive. The first point in this bill is based on economic nationalism. Rewarding employers who increase jobs inside the United States makes it seem as if foreign workers are responsible for the movement of jobs abroad and the resulting problems suffered by American workers. Arguably outsourcing is beneficial because it provides jobs for workers in the developing world who might otherwise be forced to survive by claiming benefits from the government, or working in the informal sector where employment is unstable and unionization cannot take place. Outsourced employment may pay poor wages in comparison to incomes in the developed world, but is still a relative improvement compared to the other employment available in developing countries. By supporting legislation designed to reduce the impact of outsourcing and create jobs for American workers at the expense of workers in the developing world, socialists encourage workers to see each other as competitors for employment.


I think as long as legislature that is proposed is better then the status quo, not matter how insignificantly better, it is a good thing.This legislation may improve conditions for American workers, but what about the adverse impacts for workers in the developing world? First-world chauvinism?

[chimx]

Bob, I've never heard someone speak up for globalization quite like that before. Are you saying that globalization is a good thing because it gives workers in other nations jobs? I'll have to respectfully disagree. The exportation of American industry has had a horrible effect on the US economy and American unions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

That's because you're a national-chauvinist along the lines of the patriotic AFL/CIO bureaucracy. It's not coincidental that the same guy who refers to the U.S. imperialists as "we" and "us" (ie. "we went to war in Korea because"), cries about "American industry" being sent "exported."

None of this has anything to do with communism or even working class solidarity. The duty of workers in the U.S. is to stand with their brothers and sisters "overseas." They must do all they can to support the struggles of these workers to better their conditions. If the union tops really wanted to help the working class, they would do all they could to help unionize industries in the imperialist-oppressed countries some of the bosses are so found of moving their businesses to, thus making it so that the bosses couldn't just pack up and run to the place with the lowest wages - which in the end would benefit workers in the U.S. too. But instead they remain tied to the bosses and promote their class-dividing, pro-imperialist chauvinist outlook.

Workers have no country.

This "act" is coming from Obama to win over the support of nativist petty-bourgeois and bourgeois forces as well as to give the union bureaucracies something "great gain" to show to the rank-and-file to get them on the Democratic bandwagon once again. It promotes U.S.-chauvinism and division amongst the world's workers without actually accomplishing anything (as if a 1% tax cut could prevent bosses from moving their businesses!). We must remember that Obama is a capitalist politician, and everything he does is done to benefit the class he represents.

And actually, far from what so many on the left think, "globalization" is not entirely horrible. One of the progressive things capitalism has over previous systems is that it facilitates the breaking down of national borders (which serve more than anything to divide the working class today), increased immigration and intermingling, etc. Of course the free trade agreements and the like are horrible, but to write off "globalization" and wall ourselves off in "our own" countries is not the answer. International socialist revolution is.

[BIG BROTHER]

Well its being said already, this bill is better thant what workers have now, but it really makes its seem as if the workers from other nations are the problems to the workers in the united states.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Firstly, regardless of whether this bill is actually positive, the one percent reduction offered is unlikely to be sufficient, firms will not change the amount they pay employees, especially if they currently pay significantly below the living wage figure, for such a small tax reduction.

Even if this problem did not exist, however, this bill should not be seen as progressive. The first point in this bill is based on economic nationalism. Rewarding employers who increase jobs inside the United States makes it seem as if foreign workers are responsible for the movement of jobs abroad and the resulting problems suffered by American workers. Arguably outsourcing is beneficial because it provides jobs for workers in the developing world who might otherwise be forced to survive by claiming benefits from the government, or working in the informal sector where employment is unstable and unionization cannot take place. Outsourced employment may pay poor wages in comparison to incomes in the developed world, but is still a relative improvement compared to the other employment available in developing countries. By supporting legislation designed to reduce the impact of outsourcing and create jobs for American workers at the expense of workers in the developing world, socialists encourage workers to see each other as competitors for employment.

This legislation may improve conditions for American workers, but what about the adverse impacts for workers in the developing world? First-world chauvinism?
You know, you're completely correct about first world chauvinism.
People no matter where they live have a right to make a living.

However, how can U.S. legislature be responsible for the developing world?
If it is, isn't that an imperialistic act upon itself?
"Produce what we want you to, and we'll give you money for it. Keep doing it, and we won't crush you economically. Stop doing it, and we won't pay you!"
Isn't that how capitalism (even feudalism) works?

If U.S. legislature is accountable for the well-being of the rest of the world, then shouldn't by that same logic the U.S. intervene when a developing nation undergoes a crisis?

Do you not want a decent job with decent pay and decent working conditions? Do you not also want personal safety? Do you not turn to the government to ensure both (work and safety) are available (unless you are an anarchist, whereupon you would be opposed to any legislation at all)?

I started a thread not long ago asking if it was ever acceptable for U.S. military intervention for any reason, and the unanimous consensus was an overwhelming no.

Yet the U.S. is somehow supposed to worry about the adverse affect of it's legislature globally?If U.S. intervention is deemed as imperialist, and the U.S. should mind it's own, how can it's legislature be held accountable? That's like having a partner who practices abstinence, then wonders why you haven't given them an orgasm.

I'm not even going to go in depth about how such legislature is itself completely reliant on the policies and actions of the developing nations; if they don't cooperate (such as if a country refuses to cooperate with American imperialism) then the whole act is a bust.

In one scenario the U.S. could make a direct, immediate, and definite influence to the wellbeing of a developing nation.
In the other, the U.S. can make an insignificant, delayed, and dependent upon the developing world's ambitions.

Chose between neutrality (where the U.S. should look after it's own, and leave everyone else alone) and accountability (where the U.S. should be an active member of the international community and account for others). Don't burn the candle on both ends.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. In a perfect world, everyone would have a job, there'd be no violence, and the U.S. would be disbanded.

We don't live in a perfect world, so let's make the best of what we do have.

I will reiterate my original comment: no matter how insignificant, a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction!

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I agree. But this legislation is aimed at easing the problems of organization, similarly to EFCA. As a syndicalist, don't you think its important to support legislation that better enables laborers to collectively struggle for improved conditions?

Yeah, but strong organization needs to be strong on its own merits. We can't expect the state to help us build strong autonomous working class organizations. Hell if you gave me the choice of going back and tanking the Wagner act, I totally would.

[chimx]

We must remember that Obama is a capitalist politician, and everything he does is done to benefit the class he represents.

Marx never intended his works to be interpreted so dogmatically. Political superstructure is far more dynamic than you are letting on. It seeks to maintain the hegemony of the dominate class in the long term, but in the short term is relatively autonomous and can create legislation that are beneficial to working peoples provided that these laws assist with long-term class domination.


We can't expect the state to help us

This is a position that I used to agree with but now reject. Baring in mind what I said above, I think it is possible to exploit the dynamism of the political superstructure for the benefit of the subjugated class. For example, despite the drop in unionization, union votes account for the same proportion of votes as they did 30 years ago. Because of that the union vote is still very important to politicians and they are forced to make some concessions to union demands. This, the EFCA, Obama's opposition the KOR-US FTA and his recent back pedaling on NAFTA can be seen as a result of this.

I'm interested in seeing the growth of labor organizations and the creation of a poltical party that fights for labor's interests. I think that is a much more realistic solution to capitalism that idealistically hoping that working people will suddenly risk the security of their families and engage in class warfare, or will be magically transformed into communists. Marxism more so than anything is about materialism, and much of what I see in this thread strikes me as uncanny idealism.

[YKTMX]

Any increase in the workers' wages is good. As socialists, we want to see more of the social product given back to the people who produce it. I take the comrade who said that this is not a "living wage" in some states at his word. I do also presume that $7.80 an hour is better in South Dakota than it is in Manhattan.

This is a fairly soft piece of reformist politics from Obama. It's the kind of "centrist" proposal he'll be offering from here on in I imagine. It combines efforts at improving the miserable condition of the U.S working classes with appeals to the good nature of American capitalists. Of course, I still expect most members of the bourgeoisie to support McCain.

As for the "nativist" thing. I honestly think, in the debates and speeches I've heard, Obama has placed just as much emphasis on the destructive enviromental and labour effects on poor countries in terms of U.S trade than he has on "outsourcing".

Though, I'm not entirely certain why we'd be opposed to "protectionism". I favour it. If more poorer countries had the ability to develop their internal markets, the development process would be quicker. This is what worked for Latin American in the post-war period with ISI.

[chimx]

Any increase in the workers' wages is good.

Honestly I think the $7.80 "living wage" aspect of the bill is the least important part. Having employers that will pay into pensions, pay significant portions of healthcare, and take neutral positions on unionization campaigns strike me larger gains.

[Comrade-Z]

Obama's proposed reform is a crock of shit (which shouldn't be surprising...anything with the word "patriotic" in it is probably gonna be awful right from the start). Here's why:

Minimum wage reform (or any type of wage reform) is, at best, an exercise in redistributing wealth from one group of workers to another, unless both production and consumption are targeted. This is because, if one sector of workers in a country (or one country of workers in the world) gets a wage increase, businesses will try to raise the price of their products to maintain their rate of profit. Prices will rise, purchasing power will go down overall, and most workers will be slightly worse off while that one sector of workers that got the raise will be slightly better off. But there will still be same rate of profit, the same amount of wealth going to the working class as a whole, except now there is more animosity between the various segments of the working class. Then the other segments of the working class take their turn at getting wage reform and getting a bigger share of the wage-pie, and it just goes around in a vicious cycle without really going anywhere, as it has been for the last 200 years.

I would argue that the only place for this type of reform is when it privileges the poorer segments of the world working class in the 3rd world at the expense of workers in the 1st world (which is the exact opposite of what Obama's plan accomplishes), thus evening things out and bringing about a similarity of conditions and thus more of a solidarity of consciousness between 1st world workers and 3rd world workers. (Corporate globalization should not be opposed so much because it harms 1st world workers (although you can oppose corporate globalization for that reason as well if you want), but, most essentially, because globalization also harms 3rd world workers. And remember, we are not against "globalization" in the abstract. We are for an alternative globalization, proletarian internationalism!)

There are two ways around this vicious cycle, though:

1. If a large enough segment of workers struggles for an increase in wages while also struggling for a steadying or decrease in prices (whether through boycotts, "conscious consumption," other consumer activism, whatever). Then, wages can go up and prices can be kept level or even decreased, meaning that in fact more of the profit, more of the surplus value, actually goes to the working class.

2. Getting rid of the wage system altogether bypasses these quibbling concerns.

Hence, Obama's proposed reform is a crock of shit. Not only should you not spend any time promoting it, you should be actively attacking its false promises for the world's working class.

[Vanguard1917]

Though, I'm not entirely certain why we'd be opposed to "protectionism". I favour it. If more poorer countries had the ability to develop their internal markets, the development process would be quicker.


Supporting protectionist policies by poor nations is one thing. Supporting Western protectionism is another thing. The latter phenomenon is totally reactionary; its intention is to secure imperialist economic wellbeing at the expense of the rest of the world.

As others have pointed out, US economic nationalism isn't progressive in any way. The 'American jobs for American workers' populist rhetoric is reactionary and should be exposed as such.

[YKTMX]

The latter phenomenon is totally reactionary; its intention is to secure imperialist economic wellbeing at the expense of the rest of the world.


The U.S's economic "wellbeing" will always be at the expense of the rest of the world under international capitalism. That is a non-sequitur. But there are different tactics for promoting the interests of the global working class and how they relate to workers and oppressed groups in the developed regions. The current tactic favoured by the bourgeoisie is increasing exploitation of "domestic" workers, guranteed through super-exploitation of the third world and "threat" of outsourcing.

One counter-strategy to that, offered by some reformist politicians like Obama, is to ensure that "trade" takes place in an enviroment in which the "rules" are skewed in favour domestic labour (and sections of domestic capital, particularly those dependent on internal demand) and against internationalized fractions of capital (attacks on "big oil", "drug companies", the "super-rich"). This might have a side-benefit of ensuring greater rights and opportunities for workers abroad - for instance, greater possibilities for collective bargaining.


US economic nationalism isn't progressive in any way.

I'm not sure. I think it's entirely possible to see it as an anti-globalization, progressive message mediated through the dominant "nationalist" discourse. It's a deflected class struggle position, I think.

[chimx]

US economic nationalism isn't progressive in any way

Why is it progressive to export the rest of America's industry? The result of this has been the creation of an economy that is dominated by low-level service sector jobs. 16% of American's make under $10/hr because of this outsourcing. 15% of Americans can't afford health care because of this outsourcing, resulting in thousands of deaths every years -- not to mention countless families filing for bankruptcy. Ever since we began the process of dismantling American industry union memberships have severely dropped while we have seen a massive polarization of wages between the classes. The quality of life for workers in the United States has plummeted and the values of meritocracy has all but disappeared.

How do you propose to build a labor movement when you ask workers in the United States to accept this attack on their material interests? I can just imagine how the conversation would go: "you don't deserve healthcare, a productive job, and a wage above $10/hr because such goals hinder proletarian internationalism."

[Vanguard1917]

The U.S's economic "wellbeing" will always be at the expense of the rest of the world under international capitalism.

Yes, but in many ways more so when the US has employed protectionist policies, which are designed to secure growth at home against competition abroad. This hits poor countries the worst.



I'm not sure. I think it's entirely possible to see it as an anti-globalization, progressive message mediated through the dominant "nationalist" discourse. It's a deflected class struggle position, I think.


In what way? Economic nationalism promotes, among other things, social chauvinism.

Also, it shows that being 'anti-globalisation' is in no way necessarily progressive. Opposing imports into the US, calling for 'American jobs for American workers'... these would historically be labelled right-wing positions. It's only a testimony to the bankruptcy of the old left that they can now be considered in any way 'progressive'.

[YKTMX]

which are designed to secure growth at home against competition abroad. This hits poor countries the worst.

Once again, this is the goal of all economic policy. No government sets out to be less competitive on the world market. The current policies of the American ruling class - increased rates of domestic and international exploitation of the work force, militarism and "free trade" deals that benefit American capital - is one form of economic development. It's designed with, as I said, the interests of international capital in mind.

The reformists offer something that benefits domestic capital (small business, businesses dependent on internal demand) and domestic labour (particularly organized labour).

I fail to see how the latter of these two options is "reactionary" or hurts workers in poor countries. I don't think you've offered any good reasons so far, either.


Economic nationalism promotes, among other things, social chauvinism.


As I said, this is a possibility, but it can also go the other way. If you look at Obama's "stump" on this, there's always something about the impact that "free trade" has on foreign workers as well as domestic labour.


imports into the US, calling for 'American jobs for American workers'... these would historically be labelled right-wing positions.

Well, these terms are confusing. Classical liberals were supporters of free-trade because they were ultra-capitalist. "Conservatives" supported some support for domestic industry. The roles are somewhat reversed now. I'm not sure the left-right spectrum has really a lot to offer here.

[BobKKKindle$]

Bob, I've never heard someone speak up for globalisation quite like that before. Are you saying that globalisation is a good thing because it gives workers in other nations jobs? Legislation which attempts to prevent the movement of employment overseas is reactionary as it worsens economic conditions in the developing world, and is invariably based on a nationalist outlook which creates division between the workers of oppressed and oppressor nations by linking the oppressor-nation workers to the ruling class. The adverse economic impacts of outsourcing for oppressor-nation workers (loss of manufacturing jobs, downwards pressure on wages, etc.) will diminish the gap between these workers, and the workers of the developing world, and so will allow for the development of class consciousness and class solidarity. As for the general issue of the developing world, socialists should support the right of oppressed-nations to use import substitution policy to support the growth of domestic industry and overcome the constraints of primary product dependency. In the absence of import substitution, oppressed nations will be unable to compete against imported goods which can be sold at a lower price than domestic output, and so will be permanently locked into dependency on a single or small range of primary goods, which attain a low price on the global market and are vulnerable to sudden fluctuations in price.

At the same time, Socialists should advocate the elimination of barriers to trade and artificial government support (such as agricultural subsidies provided to farmers who would not otherwise be able to survive) in oppressor nations to allow oppressed-nations access to a foreign market.

It is unfortunate that there are "socialists" who support this kind of legislation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Marx never intended his works to be interpreted so dogmatically. Political superstructure is far more dynamic than you are letting on. It seeks to maintain the hegemony of the dominate class in the long term, but in the short term is relatively autonomous and can create legislation that are beneficial to working peoples provided that these laws assist with long-term class domination.

Which is exactly what I said... Obama represents the capitalist class and their interests. If he "introduces" any gains to workers it will be as a part of a strategy to preserve the position of the ruling class, ala' FDR's New Deal. Workers can force gains to be made under capitalism, but they're all temporary unless capitalism is done away with completely.

* * *

On minimum wage raises: a raise of the minimum wage is always offset by a change in buying power, etc. This is basic stuff.. We should support struggles for better conditions, but especially with things like minimum wage raises, we should do so to mobilize the working class, help it gain experience, strength, confidence, etc., always in the interest of bringing forth revolution.

[chimx]

The adverse economic impacts of outsourcing for oppressor-nation workers (loss of manufacturing jobs, downwards pressure on wages, etc.) will diminish the gap between these workers, and the workers of the developing world, and so will allow for the development of class consciousness and class solidarity.

So you advocate making workers in first-world nations poorer so as to foster an internationalist class consciousness?


Which is exactly what I said... Obama represents the capitalist class and their interests. If he "introduces" any gains to workers it will be as a part of a strategy to preserve the position of the ruling class, ala' FDR's New Deal. Workers can force gains to be made under capitalism, but they're all temporary unless capitalism is done away with completely.

Yes, I agree. But like I said elsewhere in this thread, I believe it is the job of leftists to acknowledge this dynamism within the capitalist superstructure and exploit it to positionally advantage labor. Legislation that aims to increase unionization is such an example in my opinion.

[Comrade-Z]

Why is it progressive to export the rest of America's industry? The result of this has been the creation of an economy that is dominated by low-level service sector jobs. 16% of American's make under $10/hr because of this outsourcing. 15% of Americans can't afford health care because of this outsourcing, resulting in thousands of deaths every years -- not to mention countless families filing for bankruptcy. Ever since we began the process of dismantling American industry union memberships have severely dropped while we have seen a massive polarization of wages between the classes. The quality of life for workers in the United States has plummeted and the values of meritocracy has all but disappeared.

How do you propose to build a labor movement when you ask workers in the United States to accept this attack on their material interests? I can just imagine how the conversation would go: "you don't deserve healthcare, a productive job, and a wage above $10/hr because such goals hinder proletarian internationalism."

I'm not asking US workers to accept any attack on their material interests. I'm telling them that they will be much more successful in fighting for their material interests in the long run if they use different tactics. Namely, instead of calling for jobs to be reserved for one privileged group of workers over another, US workers would be better off actively organizing with workers from other countries and bringing the wage demands of those 3rd world workers up to the purchasing-power-parity (PPP, not necessarily nominal) level of those in the US, so that all workers are making wages with similar purchasing power, and so that corporations don't have an incentive to offshore and play groups of workers off against each other, and so that all these workers have an equal shot at these jobs, which will then help the world's workers cooperate in the struggle for proletarian revolution in which workers get control of everything.

Granted, this strategy is long and difficult (although the payoff is huge and is a sure thing that depends only on our own capabilities for class struggle, not on the fickle promises of politicians), and this strategy only makes sense within a context of setting the groundwork for revolution, so until US workers see the need for this, they're probably going to continue to be misled into a strategy of economic nationalism, and they'll continue to get fucked. So, is this strategy likely to be popular in the near future? No, but we can slowly build support for it if we clearly explain it.

[BobKKKindle$]

So you advocate making workers in first-world nations poorer so as to foster an internationalist class consciousness?

Not as such - Socialists should support demands for wage increases or improvements in working conditions, as these are aggressive demands which seek to force concessions, and prepare for the working class for political struggles against the bourgeois state, and the seizure of the means of production. However, legislation such as the act discussed in this thread creates a link between the bourgeoisie and the working class by promoting a nationalist worldvew, and so undermines class consciousness - even though there may be a (temporary) material gain.

[Comrade-Z]

So you advocate making workers in first-world nations poorer so as to foster an internationalist class consciousness?

This is not what I'm advocating, although let's pursue this thought-experiment. If 1st world people were made poorer and 3rd world people were made wealthier, and their conditions were brought in line with each others', then 1st world people might be really pissed off, but 3rd world people would probably be pretty happy...and there are a lot more 3rd world people than 1st world people. Additionally, there would be a slight bump in class consciousness and empathy all around if everyone was dealing with the same economic conditions and the same sorts of problems. So, yeah, this probably would foster a net increase in internationalist class consciousness.

But instead, what I am advocating is this:

*The 1st world countries keep the wealth that they already have (and this wealth gets redistributed within the 1st world---if this were to occur, there is already plenty of wealth for everyone in the 1st world to live decently). Also, as machines and people get worn out, resources are diverted to replacing physical capital and training new human capital as necessary. However, almost all surplus beyond this gets invested in the 3rd world, until the 3rd world has caught up.

*This can be advertised to the fascist-minded in the 1st world as the new strategy for diffusing terrorism (which it is, in a way, although only incidentally). It can also be justified by rhetoric about reining in 1st world conspicuous consumption in order to mitigate climate change and oil depletion. After all, the US has 5% of the world's population but uses 25% of the world's resources. Even people in the US have to see that that's fucked up. And the US still has had the most net contribution to oil depletion and climate change, even if China is just catching up to US in terms of absolute CO2 emissions (but China is still nowhere near the US in terms of per-capita emissions or oil consumption). And besides, after all that the 1st world has done to brutalize and exploit the 3rd world (with the tacit participation of the ordinary citizens of these 1st world contries), this is the least the 1st world can do to repay the debt.

Edit: the only thing that I would demand of the 3rd world in this deal is that they stop their population growth! Free condoms, sex ed, a one-child policy, tax disincentives, I don't really care how you do it, just no more human population growth! (This applies to the 1st world too, but the 1st world should be on its way to getting this under control already).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a better idea: why not promote more aggressively union globalization, which has the double-positive effect of making outsourcing harder AND increasing working-class solidarity?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-unite-union-t79728/index.html

[BobKKKindle$]

The 1st world countries keep the wealth that they already have...[etc]The wealth of the oppressor nations is generated through the exploitation of the global south; the extraction of raw materials and production of material goods takes place in the developing world, but because the firms which own the means of production are based in the oppressor nations, the developing world is unable to benefit from the profit generated through the sale of these commodities.


Edit: the only thing that I would demand of the 3rd world in this deal is that they stop their population growth!

Why? Population growth is not the main impediment to growth in the developing world. The idea that the lack of economic development is primarily or solely the result of internal obstacles to growth (of which overpopulation is allegedly an example - further examples include corruption, lack of democratic institutions, etc.) has been used to justify the exploitation of the global south, as it makes the governments of the developing world responsible for the impoverished condition of the oppresed nations, and obscures the role of external factors (unequal trading relationships, foreign investment, etc.) and the effects of colonialism. Arguably, population growth should be encouraged, as a larger population will allow for greater innovation (Esther Boserup's theory of population)

[chimx]

Socialists should support demands for wage increases or improvements in working conditions

And how do you propose that workers do this? Traditionally unions are the easiest means of organizing workers to make demands like this. This legislation, and other things that Obama has proposed, seeks to make unionization in the United States far more feasible.


This is not what I'm advocating, although let's pursue this thought-experiment. If 1st world people were made poorer and 3rd world people were made wealthier, and their conditions were brought in line with each others', then 1st world people might be really pissed off, but 3rd world people would probably be pretty happy...and there are a lot more 3rd world people than 1st world people. Additionally, there would be a slight bump in class consciousness and empathy all around if everyone was dealing with the same economic conditions and the same sorts of problems. So, yeah, this probably would foster a net increase in internationalist class consciousness.

I remember talking with leftists back in 2000 and 2004 that supported George Bush because they thought it would facilitate the growth of class consciousness. I think such tactics are extremely flawed.


*The 1st world countries keep the wealth that they already have (and this wealth gets redistributed within the 1st world---if this were to occur, there is already plenty of wealth for everyone in the 1st world to live decently).

Okay -- not to sound like an asshole, but I live in reality and this just sounds purely fanciful. How do you expect workers to demand an equitable distribution of wealth in the first world with unions in shambles and the economy dominated by unproductive service-sector jobs?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

This is a position that I used to agree with but now reject. Baring in mind what I said above, I think it is possible to exploit the dynamism of the political superstructure for the benefit of the subjugated class. For example, despite the drop in unionization, union votes account for the same proportion of votes as they did 30 years ago. Because of that the union vote is still very important to politicians and they are forced to make some concessions to union demands. This, the EFCA, Obama's opposition the KOR-US FTA and his recent back pedaling on NAFTA can be seen as a result of this.

I'm interested in seeing the growth of labor organizations and the creation of a poltical party that fights for labor's interests. I think that is a much more realistic solution to capitalism that idealistically hoping that working people will suddenly risk the security of their families and engage in class warfare, or will be magically transformed into communists. Marxism more so than anything is about materialism, and much of what I see in this thread strikes me as uncanny idealism.

Define the “dynamism of the political superstructure.” Yes there is some slack in how the leaders like to manage capitalism, but unless there is significant class struggle, basic social democratic gains. There is some give, but its really quite minimal. Union participation in politics has been a big goose egg. In the US the “union vote” has only led to a steady decline. No matter how many voters we put out, we have to realize one key thing. In order to become “legitimate” political players, we have to make certain concessions, and those concessions entail giving up some of our best weapons, sabotage, boycotts, sympathy strikes, etc.

A labor party isn’t the way to go. Political parties are inherently conservative. They have to be; otherwise they can’t gain the necessary support to win and the necessary acquiescence of the state to exist. Attlee’s labour government repeatedly used troops to break strikes. The Labour party was terrified by the General strike of 1926. Democratic socialist parties always get co-opted. And the odd occasion when that doesn’t happen ie Allende, they get massacred. Electioneering is not a realistic solution, organizing ordinary people about ordinary issues is.

[chimx]

A labor party isn’t the way to go.

Well you can disagree with that aspect if you want, but I think we can agree that we need to work to better organize labor. My argument is that current Democrat legislation can be exploited to facilitate this process.


In the US the “union vote” has only led to a steady decline.

Actually this isn't true. Union membership has been in steady decline, but the union vote has remained the same proportionately if you look at exit polls.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Well you can disagree with that aspect if you want, but I think we can agree that we need to work to better organize labor. My argument is that current Democrat legislation can be exploited to facilitate this process.



Actually this isn't true. Union membership has been in steady decline, but the union vote has remained the same proportionately if you look at exit polls.

It can be exploited to a very limited degree. Like I said, any help from the state also requires certain concessions that effectively emasculate us in the future. Also while things like EFCA can help increase the number of union members, it does nothing to change the hierarchical, and corrupt nature of American unions, which will always seek to recuperate struggles and defuse them.

I was talking about union membership. The vote probably still is the same. But the vote hasn't given us much of a boost in terms of membership now has it?