What's wrong with welfare capitalism?

[Rascolnikova]

I can only think of two problems with welfare capitalism; concentration of power, and lack of sustainability. Those are big problems, but I'm not sure they could never be overcome.

Are there more? And if so, what?

Does anyone have non-obvious arguments about why the difficulties I've mentioned are insurmountable?


Is it standard to differentiate between capitalism and other economic systems purely based on management of capital?

[spartan]

There's also the fact that it defeats revolutionary class-strugglist tendencies and makes the working class accept capitalism.

And after everything has settled down the government of the day can just scrap the reforms, dismantle the welfare state and reintroduce free market economics, and we are all back at square one!

Just look at Britain!

[Q]

Like Spartan pointed out welfare systems have served as a way to "buy out" the working class to settle down or undermine class struggle. Historically there have been three reasons for the welfare state (that saw a dramatic buildup after WW2):
1. of course the class struggle, which is the engine of any social change within capitalism.
2. the political reason of the Soviet Union: while it was a totalitarian dictatorship, its planned economy (again, crippled by a bureaucratic officialdom) was an alternative for capitalism, which was seen by the western working class as such for a long time and as such a threat to the capitalist elites.
3. the economic superboom that lasted from 1950 to 1975, the longest growth period in the history of capitalism for the simple fact that after the total devastation of worldwar 2 the European and Japanese (and therefore the world) economies had only one direction to go: up. This was the economic base to pay for the welfare state.

Now, since 1975 this outlook changed dramatically. With the economic crisis the capitalist elite came to realise that the welfare state would hurt them too much in their profits and thusly a new (or rather old) breed of capitalism (re)surfaced that was propagated by Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK: monetarism or (as we now know it more commonly) neoliberalism. Which basically had two premises:
1. Public services should be privatised, social services should be cut on (as these only "interfere" with the market).
2. A whole explosion of new financial products such as futures and options. With this market the capitalist class was able to postpone the normal cycle of growth and crisis (due to overproduction) within capitalism by giving cheap credits to the working class in order to further sustain consumerism. In other words: the gap between the wage and the actual production of a worker (which is the cause that the working class can never buy back the products it has produced, leading to the inevitable crisis due to overproduction) was filled with future wage (as credits are in fact that: you pay them off with the salary you have yet to earn).

This credit bubble has now bursted, in fact ending the neoliberal era as a leading ideology (the free market is no longer the holy grail as the nationalisations and bail outs demonstrate). My point with this story is this: welfare states were possible under a specific historical circumstance which no longer exist. So with the illusions in a welfare state and the struggle for it (and illusions will most likely become dominant in the workers movement for a period), we will inevitably clash head on with the bourgeoisie. This clash in turn will radicalise the working class movement to look for other alternatives.

The free market has failed as an ideology. Not only the ruling elites will look for a new model to continue their rule, also working class families will look for alternatives, it is our task as socialists to bring forward that alternative and clarity!

[Ratatosk]

I can only think of two problems with welfare capitalism; concentration of power, and lack of sustainability. Those are big problems, but I'm not sure they could never be overcome.

Are there more? And if so, what?It doesn't really deal with what are imo the fundamental problems of capitalism, it merely tries to plaster over some of its worst symptoms. It's still fundamentally unfree, unfair and I would say also ineffective. (And I don't mean compared to some unachievable society where everyone just magically works for the common good out of their own love of humanity or something.)

Why should the MoP (and other collectively used facilities) be owned by individuals or small groups of individuals? That seems to give them quite some leverage over the rest of the society, which uses the products made there, no? I don't see why a small group of individuals should for no particular reason (other than the circular one, i.e. that they're good at making money) be granted a position of extra bargaining power by virtue of being able to conditionally deny others the use of some MoP?

The unfairness of remuneration follows naturally from this - if the highest paid people (and, of course, some people in the middle of the ladder, too) are rewarded essentially for owning (an entirely passive state) rather than doing something, then the distribution of rewards is simply not fair.

So does the ineffectivity of capitalism - decision-making based only on mostly local information (how much people buy from you) is unlikely to be as effective as a system in which decisions are made based on global information about the economy (such as, you know, asking people what they want instead of trying to infer it from market trends). I think I need not point to the ultimate consequences of that - and in welfare capitalism, the results would seem to qualitatively much the same, except perhaps smaller in scale. Markets also lead to unnecessary duplication of efforts and money wasted on competition, which may ultimately benefit the owners, but which is simply suboptimal for both the consumers and the workers when compared to democratically coordinated cooperation (which some capitalists for reasons incomprehensible to me seem to mistake for a market monopoly).

Welfare capitalism may be able to compress the inequalities a little, but if you want to compress them so much as to approach some kind of fair situation, wouldn't it make more sense to actually implement socialism, instead of trying to emulate it on a completely different OS?

[Rascolnikova]

Thank you, Ratatosk, that was helpful.

I find it exceedingly strange that for most of you, the fact that it discourages revolution is a strong argument against it. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not actually after class struggle for it's own sake; there are specific wrongs I believe it has the potential to correct, and if something else corrects them better then that's what I prefer.

I forgot to mention another good argument I've heard, which is that welfare capitalism is not possible to implement globally; I don't know the details, but it seems credible.


The best arguments against that I've seen so far are about fundamental injustice; the likelyhood of social equality without economic equality seems very minimal as well. ..

The best argument for welfare capitalism, if it could be implemented globally and sustainably, is that if civil liberties are preserved and food, housing, healthcare, and education are free, people are free in most of the ways that matter. . . and it doesn't require a revolution to get there.

I don't particularly believe all these "ifs" could ever obtain--but does anyone have any shots at this argument, anyway?


I wasn't sure whether to put this in opposing ideologies or here, but I actually wasn't intending to argue for it. . .

[el_chavista]

Still speaking about "welfare" capitalism amidst a neoliberal economic crisis? :confused:

[Rascolnikova]

Still speaking about "welfare" capitalism amidst a neoliberal economic crisis? :confused:

Um. . . apparently?

Other than the phrase "neoliberal economic crisis," I have no understanding of the significance of this post. Would you please explain?

[Q]

Um. . . apparently?

Other than the phrase "neoliberal economic crisis," I have no understanding of the significance of this post. Would you please explain?

He's making the same point as I was trying to make in my previous post: the era of welfare capitalism is over and is not coming back.

[Decolonize The Left]

I find it exceedingly strange that for most of you, the fact that it discourages revolution is a strong argument against it. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not actually after class struggle for it's own sake; there are specific wrongs I believe it has the potential to correct, and if something else corrects them better then that's what I prefer.

One could see things thusly:
- We all value, at base, freedom and equality.
- We want to realize these values within our society.
- Yet we do not start from a blank slate - some people already possess certain means of exercising power, and many structures are in place which give certain people more opportunities/power/freedom than others.
- Hence certain individuals adopt the following logic:
In order to realize these values, we ought to work with what we have to make it better. (This would be the logic of welfare capitalism)

But this is not logical. For it is the very system, the structures of inequality and oppression, which impede the realization of these values.

An analogy perhaps:
You are a slave. You have the choice between two slave masters. One says that he/she will work you hard, give you little food and little rest. The other says that he/she will work you less hard, give you more food and more rest. Which do you choose?

Such is the 'choice' of free market vs. welfare capitalism. Neither address the issue that you're still a slave. It doesn't matter if the shackles are light and shiny - they're still shackles.

- August

[Rascolnikova]

War imposes a lot of real limits on freedom as well; an unsuccessful or partially successful revolution would likely reduce freedom more than increasing it.

[Incendiarism]

I don't know, I feel that the working class fought for those reforms and shouldn't be given up simply because they discourage fundamental change of the way society is. A good number of you are perhaps the same people who explicitly speak out against making things worse for the working class in many other threads.

I can understand the criticism of it, but I don't think we should completely give up on these programs, whatever devastating impact they seemingly may have. They do not destroy the root of the matter as was previously said, and thus we still have the opportunity to spread the word concerning communism and its superiority of the capitalist system, and just what what would supersede the current mode.

As it stands the people who need government handouts do not wish to eliminate them, and indeed, it is undesirable. It's not as if the welfare system works completely in their favor anyway(at least in the US thanks to Clinton reforms) and we would do well to point this out.

[BobKKKindle$]

Welfare capitalism is rapidly becoming unsustainable in terms of economic feasibility - as globalization proceeds governments are being forced to reduce spending on welfare and reduce high levels of taxation on firms to remain competitive in a global market environment, which means that ordinary people are being denied access to services which were previously provided by the government at no cost to the consumer. We should also consider that welfare capitalism has hitherto been implemented only in the first world, and it has been argued that this level of government intervention has only been made possible by the exploitation of other countries in the third world, especially in the third world, such that welfare capitalism cannot be a solution to poverty in a global level.

[Hit The North]

Welfare capitalism is rapidly becoming unsustainable in terms of economic feasibility

On the contrary, given the current collapse of global financial markets, it is neoliberal capitalism that is economically unsustainable and welfare capitalism which is becoming an increasing necessity.


We should also consider that welfare capitalism has hitherto been implemented only in the first world, and it has been argued that this level of government intervention has only been made possible by the exploitation of other countries in the third world, especially in the third world, such that welfare capitalism cannot be a solution to poverty in a global level.

The NHS in the UK has depended on siphoning off skilled labour from the third world and in that case I agree with you. However, the financing of welfare states is dependent upon taxing the working class. It is the workers of the first world who pay for the system.

[Rascolnikova]

The NHS in the UK has depended on siphoning off skilled labour from the third world and in that case I agree with you. However, the financing of welfare states is dependent upon taxing the working class. It is the workers of the first world who pay for the system.

Since money in the first world is only able to buy what it can by virtue of slave/sweatshop labor, how can it be said that anyone in the first world pays for anything they consume?

[Hit The North]

Since money in the first world is only able to buy what it can by virtue of slave/sweatshop labor, how can it be said that anyone in the first world pays for anything they consume?

Here is a basic economic fact: workers in the first world work in a wage economy where they are exploited by the owners of means of production. Their labour creates value for the bosses - unless you want to argue that the bosses employ people out of the goodness of their hearts - in which case you should probably be restricted to OI. Furthermore, workers wages are then taxed around 30% and this revenue then funds health, education and other social services. Those services or goods which belong to the private sector have to be purchased with money from what's left of the untaxed wage of workers.

So tell me, in what sense do workers in the first world not pay for the things they consume?

[Rascolnikova]

I suppose the better way to describe it would be that workers in the first world do not earn/spend the full material value of the things they consume, since such a high proportion of that value is added in the third world. We are the global bourgeoisie.

[Demogorgon]

Welfare capitalism, where it manages to exist is nice in of itself, in that it is better than more laissez-faire models, but it really does not get to the crux of the matter. There is still massive inequality, suffering and exploitation, just in slightly smaller doses. To be sure it is "less bad", but that does not mean that it is good.

[Hit The North]

I suppose the better way to describe it would be that workers in the first world do not earn/spend the full material value of the things they consume, since such a high proportion of that value is added in the third world.

No, saying it this way does not work either.

Let's take an example: Nike trainers, made in Indonesian sweat shops, where typically workers produce these shoes for wages of around $1.50 a day. How much does a pair of these trainers then cost back in the United States? $50? $80? And yet you claim that first world workers do not "spend the full material value of the things they consume" inferring that the American teenager who buys the Nike trainers is benefiting from the super exploitation experienced by the Indonesian workers. In what sense is there any benefit for the first world consumer in this exchange? Who is really benefiting? Who accumulates the massive profits derived from this economic exchange: the American consumer or the Nike Corporation?

Let's be clear: corporate capitalism switches production to the third world, not so it can offer cut-price deals to first world workers; but so it can derive super profits.

The impact of the transfer of production away from the 1st world to the 3rd world is that 1st world workers become reliant on service sector employment and McJobs which are typically poorly unionised, insecure and low paid. Ask the former auto workers of Flint Michigan if they benefited when General Motors switched their plants to Mexico.


We are the global bourgeoisie.
Then your political position is that first world workers have the same interests as the global bourgeoisie and therefore an objective interest in perpetuating global capitalism.

As such, you should be restricted.

[Rascolnikova]

No, saying it this way does not work either.

Let's take an example: Nike trainers, made in Indonesian sweat shops, where typically workers produce these shoes for wages of around $1.50 a day. How much does a pair of these trainers then cost back in the United States? $50? $80? And yet you claim that first world workers do not "spend the full material value of the things they consume" inferring that the American teenager who buys the Nike trainers is benefiting from the super exploitation experienced by the Indonesian workers. In what sense is there any benefit for the first world consumer in this exchange? Who is really benefiting? Who accumulates the massive profits derived from this economic exchange: the American consumer or the Nike Corporation?

Let's be clear: corporate capitalism switches production to the third world, not so it can offer cut-price deals to first world workers; but so it can derive super profits.

The impact of the transfer of production away from the 1st world to the 3rd world is that 1st world workers become reliant on service sector employment and McJobs which are typically poorly unionised, insecure and low paid. Ask the former auto workers of Flint Michigan if they benefited when General Motors switched their plants to Mexico.

I'm not saying the workers of the first world aren't exploited, or that they don't suffer. I'm also not saying that for goods like Nikes, where most of the value is an attenuated social "coolness," your argument isn't correct.

However, I believe that for most goods--for example, most food, everything you buy at a dollar store, and most things people buy at walmart--the way the corporate assholes make the greatest profit is to pass some exploitation on to the consumer. (For food, indirectly so.)

I could be wrong; I'm aware that a lot of this is numbers, and it seems hard to track down accurate ones.

First world workers are oppressed, as well as in wage slavery and marxian exploitation, by the fact that as a necessity of social functioning they must consume far more than they would objectively need in order to pursue their goals in a less wasteful society.




Then your political position is that first world workers have the same interests as the global bourgeoisie and therefore an objective interest in perpetuating global capitalism.

As such, you should be restricted.I do have an objective material interest in perpetuating capitalism. Materially, it will probably treat me very well for the rest of my life, assuming it stays around, even though I'm an economically lower class first world worker at the moment. . . . I am not nearly as exploited as the people who made the clothes I'm wearing. . . . which I purchased second hand in the first world waste market.

But, I mean. . . come on. We have a first world Waste, on which, excepting housing, one can basically live for nothing. . . while other people starve. We, the first world workers have this, even ignoring the most wasteful parts of the first world. Technology is not so good that we can have that without exploitation. Honestly, save for legal intervention, there's probably enough waste housing too.

I dunno how y'all run restrictions around here. Given that as a subjective being, as far as I am able to tell I would be willing to give up all first world frills and/or die, for the sake of global workers justice, I didn't think I was posting in the wrong part of the forum. If the powers that be decide otherwise, so be it.

I am not just ruled by my objective material interests.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most laws which are passed under the umbrella of public welfare centralize wealth and help the investor class - we rarely hear about them, but all the provisions and tax loopholes and market barriers have a purpose. This should be brought to the attention of welfare liberals - at the very least they can see that the golden egg is spoiled.

Most true welfare reformers don't call themselves "capitalist," though. Not that their opinion is right, but I think it's interesting that even social liberals disassociate with the word.

[Ratatosk]

It sounds bizarre to restrict people on a leftist forum for basically believing in a form of labour aristocracy, a decidedly Marxist concept.

[Rascolnikova]

Most laws which are passed under the umbrella of public welfare centralize wealth and help the investor class - we rarely hear about them, but all the provisions and tax loopholes and market barriers have a purpose. This should be brought to the attention of welfare liberals - at the very least they can see that the golden egg is spoiled.

Most true welfare reformers don't call themselves "capitalist," though. Not that their opinion is right, but I think it's interesting that even social liberals disassociate with the word.


I agree on your first point, and the second one is very interesting ..

what do they call themselves?

[Hit The North]

It sounds bizarre to restrict people on a leftist forum for basically believing in a form of labour aristocracy, a decidedly Marxist concept.

Rascolinikova isn't using the theory of labour aristocracy, unless you think that the theory is meant to describe the position of the entire working class of the first world.

In fact she went so far as to claim that the 1st world proletariat were "the global bourgeoisie".


Originally posted by Rascolinikova
I am not just ruled by my objective material interests.

To expect the proletariat to act against its own objective interest is pure idealism.

[Rascolnikova]

To expect the proletariat to act against its own objective interest is pure idealism.

Do you mean, to expect the bourgeoisie to act against it's own objective interests?

A few things to consider--

1) Any number of revolutionaries have come from upper class backgrounds. Che leaps to mind.

2) While expecting an entire class to abandon it's apparent interests is indeed idealistic, accepting that individuals have actually made that decision is not.

I believe that, should "the" revolution occur, the proletariat of the first world would not gain a great deal materially, unless they were to continue in a system that screwed the rest of the world over. They would get health care, and education, and shorter working weeks, and much more fulfilling lives--but besides these things, it's possible that their material affluence would go down.

Right now, choosing to work less hours and not maintain a car or a professional wardrobe isn't really an option for much of the working class, particularly in America; these, among others, are the kinds of options that I would expect to become standard.

Even on a personal level--even though, materially, capitalism will eventually treat me very well--I'd way rather have that than what we've got. I'd rather be surrounded by people who are less zombie like*--, and I'd rather have more freedom to {not focus on material affluence without severe repercussions}.


It is possible, as well, that I am wrong on a strictly numerical basis; I just don't see how I can buy items at the dollar store that were manufactured in two different countries, both across the globe, without joining in on some of that exploitation. . . even forgetting about the shipping and environmental damage. . .


*I hope and expect this would be a natural consequence of people not spending All their time alternating between a scrounge for survival, maintaining the expected appearances of affluence, and desperately seeking escapism in all the moments in between.


Edit: also, unless I'm much mistaken, at the time that theory was formulated we hadn't properly seen the emergence of the first world?

I'm not saying it's not useful to conceptualize the first world workers as a proletariat, but should we rebel, we will face the economic consequences of no longer taking advantage of the globally exploitative system we've had little choice but to take part in.

[Hit The North]

I believe that, should "the" revolution occur, the proletariat of the first world would not gain a great deal materially, unless they were to continue in a system that screwed the rest of the world over. They would get health care, and education, and shorter working weeks, and much more fulfilling lives--but besides these things, it's possible that their material affluence would go down.This is because you continue to see the 1st world proletariat as the main beneficiary of 3rd world exploitation. But, on the contrary, it is the bourgeoisie who benefit from the global market in goods. Take the example of the giant British retail company, Tesco. In 2007 it posted profits of £2.55 billion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6562347.stm

In an earlier post you argued that the 1st world proletariat do not pay for the full value of the goods they consume. If that was the case, how could companies like Tesco or Walmart or Microsoft register such enormous profits?

The fact is that after the revolution, when private ownership of means of production and exchange has been abolished, the goods we purchase will more truly reflect the real value to the producers and we will not be paying an effective sur-charge to keep the capitalist fat cats fat.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I agree on your first point, and the second one is very interesting ..

what do they call themselves?

(Post)-Keynesians. Social democrats. Mixed economy proponents. "Socialists."

[Rascolnikova]

This is because you continue to see the 1st world proletariat as the main beneficiary of 3rd world exploitation. But, on the contrary, it is the bourgeoisie who benefit from the global market in goods. Take the example of the giant British retail company, Tesco. In 2007 it posted profits of £2.55 billion: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6562347.stm

In an earlier post you argued that the 1st world proletariat do not pay for the full value of the goods they consume. If that was the case, how could companies like Tesco or Walmart or Microsoft register such enormous profits?

The fact is that after the revolution, when private ownership of means of production and exchange has been abolished, the goods we purchase will more truly reflect the real value to the producers and we will not be paying an effective sur-charge to keep the capitalist fat cats fat.

You aren't actually addressing my argument. I never said that large business profits weren't astronomical, and I never said that the working class of the first world was the primary beneficiary of third world exploitation.


Maybe it's simpler to you this way?


Let's call

The labor cost per unit of widget production at a moderate first world living wage L

The labor cost per unit of production at a third world slave wage S

Profit for the capitalists P

And the cost to consumers, whoever they may be, C.


I contend that there's a limit to how much consumers, who for the most part make a terrible living in the first world service economy, will pay--an upper bound on C. You seem to dispute this, which doesn't make any sense to me. If there were no upper bound on C, we would all--except the super rich, who would have maximized exploitation beyond what's possible with an even slightly educated populace--be living in shacks with dirt floors and dealing with malnutrition.

In cases of third world labor, (C-P) = S, and S << L. You seem to be implying (?) that S is the real cost of production, which it isn't if everyone gets a living wage. . . and also that C is perfectly constant, regardless of whether S or L is used, which I can't quite swallow. I think that capitalists maximize their profit by lowering C to the point where often (S+P) < L and selling more units.

Hope that clarified instead of confusing.


As I've stated repeatedly, I don't have the numbers. I could be wrong. If I am, please tell me why instead of telling me something I've not contradicted.

Edit again: it shouldn't actually be "labor cost per unit of production"--it should just be "cost per unit of production." My bad.

[Kassad]

Welfare, at least using the United States as an example, is a means of appeasement to keep the lower and middle classes from stepping out of line. If the government can keep welfare and support for the poor at a minimal standard, as they do, most will be appeased by what they believe to be sufficient wages. Unfortunately, this is nothing short of enslavement and serves to prevent the revolution we seek.

[Hit The North]

I contend that there's a limit to how much consumers, who for the most part make a terrible living in the first world service economy, will pay--an upper bound on C. You seem to dispute this, which doesn't make any sense to me.



Where have I disputed this? What I dispute is that the 1st world working class benefits in any real way from the super exploitation of the 3rd world working class. My evidence for this? The massive disparity between the production costs of goods for the capitalist corporation and the cost of those goods to the 1st world consumer.

Sure, there are plenty of pro-capitalist commentators who will reassure us that if the 3rd world enjoyed comparative standards of living to "us" in the 1st world then the price of goods would rocket. However, they're always keen to avoid the issue of profits - for the simple reason that for them, nothing would get done if there wasn't a profit to be made.

I also dispute your assertion that the 1st world working class have an objective interest in preserving the current regimes of exploitation of the global working class. If orange growers in California have to compete with heavily exploited orange growers in Pakistan this can only have the impact of forcing down the Cali workers wages. On the other hand, if the Pakistani workers organise and force better wages and conditions for themselves then this allows the Cali workers to resist pressure on their wages. There is therefore a confluence of interests between Pakistani and Californian workers.

I further dispute your assertion that the 1st world is reliant upon the 3rd world for goods. You appear to completely underestimate the huge productive capacity of the the 1st world proletariat. Thus, the European Union and the USA are the largest exporters of food into the global economy. Japan is the largest exporter of cars and vehicles. The largest exporter of all goods in the near future will be China - itself, hardly a 3rd world country.


and I never said that the working class of the first world was the primary beneficiary of third world exploitation.

No, outrageously, you said this:


Originally posted by Rascolnikova
We are the global bourgeoisie.



:rolleyes:

[Rascolnikova]

What I dispute is that the 1st world working class benefits in any real way from the super exploitation of the 3rd world working class. My evidence for this? The massive disparity between the production costs of goods for the capitalist corporation and the cost of those goods to the 1st world consumer.

So; as far as I can tell, you say S+P>>L. (C, under the current system, being more or less = S+P.)

I say S+P is sometimes < L.


Neither of us have any numbers.

If you can show me some reputable numbers, great.

Until then we are both just guessing, and I don't understand why it matters so much to you that I guess the same way you do.



Sure, there are plenty of pro-capitalist commentators who will reassure us that if the 3rd world enjoyed comparative standards of living to "us" in the 1st world then the price of goods would rocket. However, they're always keen to avoid the issue of profits - for the simple reason that for them, nothing would get done if there wasn't a profit to be made. I never said the price of goods would rocket; I said they wouldn't dramatically drop, and that in some cases, particularly where less financial advantages were prefered, the prices would likely come up somewhat.



I also dispute your assertion that the 1st world working class have an objective interest in preserving the current regimes of exploitation of the global working class. You're the one who started that. Believing as I do--guessing, as I do, about those numbers neither of us have--I can't in good faith pretend I think I wouldn't objectively be materially worse off if global equality were reached.



If orange growers in California have to compete with heavily exploited orange growers in Pakistan this can only have the impact of forcing down the Cali workers wages. On the other hand, if the Pakistani workers organise and force better wages and conditions for themselves then this allows the Cali workers to resist pressure on their wages. There is therefore a confluence of interests between Pakistani and Californian workers.An excellent point.

However, unless I am mistaken, the majority (though not all) of manufacturing and labor intensive agriculture have been moved overseas entirely, where competition with first world workers isn't an issue at all. The majority of first world workers have been forced into the service sector, a different labor market that no longer competes.

In order for global workers rights in many industries to gain any practical purchase, it must be much harder than it presently is for manufacturers to simply pack up and move their operations to a more compliant workforce--leaving all agitating groups jobless.

Of course, in the US the unemployment dissatisfaction can't be permitted to grow very high, for political reasons, and workers are thus shunted into the service economy. In the third world, not so much--hence the apparent difference in ability to obtain basic necessities of life.



I further dispute your assertion that the 1st world is reliant upon the 3rd world for goods. You appear to completely underestimate the huge productive capacity of the the 1st world proletariat. Thus, the European Union and the USA are the largest exporters of food into the global economy. Japan is the largest exporter of cars and vehicles. The largest exporter of all goods in the near future will be China - itself, hardly a 3rd world country.
Where did I assert that? It's not that we can't produce our own goods--it's that we often don't. . .

China arguably has been third world very recently, and has just come into it's own as second world.* The way Japan produces cars involves a high proportion of very skilled labor and of robots, particularly compared to how it's done here in America. . . by which I of course mean North America, specifically Mexico. I'm not very sure about the EU, but I know the way the US produces food is unsustainable and low in labor investment.




I am new at this, and I have not pretended otherwise. When I suggested that the working class of the first world were the global bourgeoisie, I was thinking of the elite "middle class" owners of things that arose under the aristocracy in Britain's early industrial era--the only bourgeoisie I learned about in school.

It should not surprise me that among committed leftists the word bourgeoisie comes across as the worst of all possible insults, or perhaps as a word that ought to have but one or two very specific meanings--and I apologize for offending anyone's sensibilities.

However, I still do not see a better metaphor for the material situation that presently obtains. A small ruling class lives in fabulous wealth obtained entirely from exploitation--an increasingly sizable group new to wealth gains access to the benefits of industrialization--and most of the world lives and dies briefly in squalor and wage slavery.


I realize that it is not a perfect analogy. The most important divergences are

a) in the fact that we do not own the material means by which the workers of the third world are enslaved and

b) in the fact that first world workers Work.


I have respect for these differences, but I counter them respectively--

a) while we do not own the material means by which the third world is enslaved, we are the economic means of it; we, and the first world "middle and upper middle classes" are the market to which the fruits of their labor is sold, and we consume Far more than we materially need.

b) our work under this system, analogous of the bourgeoisie's "work" in managing the factories, is far less terrible than the work the proletariat spends more time doing and receives less compensation for.



*I'm defining this by rate and time-line of industrialization, the most coherent criteria I've yet come across.