Thread: Conduct of Anglo-Saxons on this forum

Results 41 to 57 of 57

  1. #41
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Not all tertiary/mental labor is illegitimate. In business/administration, yes, better that the labor be done by those implicated in the administration (workers running their own factories, etc. etc.). But teachers and doctors perform socially necessary labor even if it is "unproductive" in a certain sense of the word. I don't really understand your question, though, so I don't know if this answers it.

    No, it's fine -- you're on-topic.

    I myself would put teachers and doctors in the 'necessary for the reproduction of labor' category ('productive labor'), though I readily agree that it's a gray-area, too, since one could probably get along fine in the world as it is without being serviced by either, arguably.

    From past discussions I've found that analyzing objective work-role positions is also dependent on *perspective*, as in whether we're treating the role in the context of capital / business-ownership, or from the standpoint of labor. For example, there may be an empirical need for office-cleaning labor -- in the context of the business entity such a task is 'unproductive labor', and is taken out of surplus labor value. Nonetheless the office-cleaning worker is doing labor and is being paid a wage, regardless:



    [I] can't help but think that even in the latter case there is a *commodity* being produced, that of 'office-cleaning', at least at the very circumscribed extent of higher-administration-office-cleaning. (And I'm saying this *empirically*, not politically.)

    Note that cleaning labor is still being exploited, the cleaning workers are being paid a wage, and the surplus value of their labor is being expropriated by their boss.

    As before in this thread I think you're glossing over the differentiation between the function of *capital* regarding 'unproductivity', and the function of *labor* regarding 'unproductivity'.

    Also:




    [I]'m only talking about the necessity of *shiny shoes*, for business, which is on par with the necessity of *capitalist persons* themselves, for business. (See the quoted part of a past post of yours, above.)

    We *could* generalize 'shiny shoes' to the larger, overall consumption on the part of capitalists (from new, incoming surplus value), and ask the same question of 'fixed-capital-or-operating-costs' for *all* of it. (In other words from the point of view of capital itself it would rather not have to make outlays for *infrastructure* for commodity production, which adds into the M-C-M' cycle, any more than it wants the costs of capitalist-person *consumption* expenses.)

    So I'm *not* arguing that 'shiny shoes' -- consumed by capitalists -- is 'productive', I'm simply saying that it's a gray-area as to whether 'shiny shoes' is indispensable to production, or not. (Could the production of shoes, for example, be accomplished *without* the expense of shiny shoes for capitalists -- ? Maybe, but *is* it done that way, or do we find that shiny shoes *are* an expense, for the sake of production, no matter *what* the particular factory happens to produce -- ?)

    Since we happen to find shiny shoes in *every* business and factory that is involved with production maybe 'shiny shoes' is as important to production as the walls of a factory.



    ---



    My comment was pertaining to the first world, not globally.

    Yeah, I realize that now. Maybe restate your point on all of this -- ?



    I'd just say realist. The material conditions don't exist for revolution.

    Oh -- *currently*, sure, otherwise there'd be a revolution right now. But I don't think this is saying much. Things can change seemingly overnight.


    ---



    Reformist much -- ? This liberal line invariably follows once you've given up on socialist revolution, as you have in point #1, above.


    Categorize it however you'd like. I don't think reformist or liberal are adequate definitions of what I've proposed. What I've proposed isn't a long term goal. It's what the left needs to be focusing on in the present day, until the fall of imperialism, which will create the appropriate material conditions for revolution.

    What *have* you proposed?



    I emphasize nationalism because I view it as a necessary step to take in breaking out of imperialism.

    I'm not M-L, because I believe the 20th century has shown the insufficiencies in the ideology. In general I disagree with it and Marxism on one major point, in that I find that the fundamental contradiction of capitalism is the contradiction between imperialist centers and peripheries. For that reason I find that M-L is insufficiently nationalist. Socialism in One Country is fine and all, but its perspective is still on global communist revolution.

    Why the focus on *national* (presumably national-liberation) struggles as a priority -- ? It strikes me as being decidedly too stagist.

    And, no, SIOC does *not* have any consideration for the global communist revolution, as far as I know.



    For me, the conditions for global communist revolution don't exist yet.

    Well, the world's proletariat is larger than at any other time in history, and is also a larger percentage of the global population. We now have advanced electronic communications, and the Internet.

    Objectively / empirically I'd say the only thing missing is the *subjective* factor, or mass workers consciousness.



    My primary goal is dismantling imperialism. M-L doesn't really seek to do that. My other criticisms are those that I've outlined in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat, in that I find a professional vanguard to be inherently incapable of leading revolution all the way to the end, and that I find that the model of state organization reflects the same incapability.

    These are serious contentions -- you may want to elaborate more on your reasoning behind such statements.

    I don't think that a workers movement would 'dismantle' imperialism, as in disassembling certain specific social state machinery and not others. Sure, in the process of seizing the state the present-day foreign policy would be 'withered-away', since workers don't have an interest in repressing other workers internationally, but I'd say that's about it.

    Imperialism would be 'dismantled' along with all other functional features of the state and capitalism -- the way you phrase it it sounds almost *reformist*.



    The solution however is not bourgeois nationalism that we saw in the 20th century as the primary model of non-M-L model of anti-imperialism. The national bourgeoisie is far too comprador to be trusted with revolutionary leadership against imperialism.

    Good, good to hear.



    Popular nationalism combines the best elements of the aforementioned models. It incorporates the mass leadership we see in M-L with the nationalist model of anti-imperialism we see in the latter, which creates a synthetic model which is uniquely capable of developing a country in a progressive manner.

    Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

    And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?



    (I don't really propose this model for the first world because imperialist nationalism is pretty much just imperialism. However, if the first world wants to stop being internationalist (that is, imperialist in this case), I wouldn't say no, haha)

    Yup. Check this out:


    Political Spectrum, Simplified



  2. #42
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    What are the material conditions, in your view?


    The material conditions for revolution in the first world require the end of imperialism before socialism can even be a possibility.

    No, it's fine -- you're on-topic.

    I myself would put teachers and doctors in the 'necessary for the reproduction of labor' category ('productive labor'), though I readily agree that it's a gray-area, too, since one could probably get along fine in the world as it is without being serviced by either, arguably.

    From past discussions I've found that analyzing objective work-role positions is also dependent on *perspective*, as in whether we're treating the role in the context of capital / business-ownership, or from the standpoint of labor. For example, there may be an empirical need for office-cleaning labor -- in the context of the business entity such a task is 'unproductive labor', and is taken out of surplus labor value. Nonetheless the office-cleaning worker is doing labor and is being paid a wage, regardless:

    [I]'m only talking about the necessity of *shiny shoes*, for business, which is on par with the necessity of *capitalist persons* themselves, for business. (See the quoted part of a past post of yours, above.)

    We *could* generalize 'shiny shoes' to the larger, overall consumption on the part of capitalists (from new, incoming surplus value), and ask the same question of 'fixed-capital-or-operating-costs' for *all* of it. (In other words from the point of view of capital itself it would rather not have to make outlays for *infrastructure* for commodity production, which adds into the M-C-M' cycle, any more than it wants the costs of capitalist-person *consumption* expenses.)

    So I'm *not* arguing that 'shiny shoes' -- consumed by capitalists -- is 'productive', I'm simply saying that it's a gray-area as to whether 'shiny shoes' is indispensable to production, or not. (Could the production of shoes, for example, be accomplished *without* the expense of shiny shoes for capitalists -- ? Maybe, but *is* it done that way, or do we find that shiny shoes *are* an expense, for the sake of production, no matter *what* the particular factory happens to produce -- ?)

    Since we happen to find shiny shoes in *every* business and factory that is involved with production maybe 'shiny shoes' is as important to production as the walls of a factory.
    I have trouble agreeing with everything you've said here. The janitor, the restaurant table waiter, the cashier, etc., these are all tertiary jobs, of course. Perhaps not the cashier in the long term, but for now, all these professions are socially necessary, even though they don't produce anything. The tertiary sector has grown enormous over the past few decades. In the first world, most people don't work in industry, yet they consume industrially produced goods. Wherefrom? Third world-produced goods. The proletariat has been outsourced, one could say. Yes, these tertiary laborers are oppressed. But is it fair to consider them exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, since they don't *produce* anything? I lean towards no (which brings me to the conclusion that the first world population in imperialist centers is largely parasitic, but that's a different story for a different time).

    Yeah, I realize that now. Maybe restate your point on all of this -- ?
    My point is explained just above.

    Oh -- *currently*, sure, otherwise there'd be a revolution right now. But I don't think this is saying much. Things can change seemingly overnight.
    Yeah, but I believe that the conditions which would lead to a possibility for revolution in the first world require an end to imperialism. Call it stagist if you'd like, but I don't believe revolution will happen here while the population continues to indulge itself in parasitic consumption.

    What *have* you proposed?
    I proposed that in the first world, since the population is largely privileged, even parasitic, and that revolution isn't a feasible goal, anti-imperialists in the first world have the obligation to do whatever we can to dismantle imperialism. In the first place, a very basic goal would be the dismantling of American military might abroad. While American military hegemony exists, national liberation is a near impossibility. Conscious first worlders can play a very active and very important role in this regard. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say everything I want to on this subject while remaining within the rules I agreed to when signing up, so I won't say much more on this point.

    Why the focus on *national* (presumably national-liberation) struggles as a priority -- ? It strikes me as being decidedly too stagist.
    I don't think it's particularly stagist. As we've learned from the lessons of the 20th century, *popular* nationalism is the only way the third world will dismantle imperialism at its core. The transition from popular nationalism/mass-led state capitalism (I refer you again to On New Democracy by Mao) to socialism is relatively smooth and not stagist.

    And, no, SIOC does *not* have any consideration for the global communist revolution, as far as I know.
    This is a misrepresentation of the Stalinist line. I developed this more in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Well, the world's proletariat is larger than at any other time in history, and is also a larger percentage of the global population. We now have advanced electronic communications, and the Internet.

    Objectively / empirically I'd say the only thing missing is the *subjective* factor, or mass workers consciousness.
    Sure. But there are precise material reasons that the mass worker consciousness doesn't exist, as I mentioned above.

    These are serious contentions -- you may want to elaborate more on your reasoning behind such statements.
    M-L is insufficient in dismantling imperialism for the precise reason that it doesn't make it it's primary goal, as it needs to be. The failure to do so was, in my view, one of the several causes of its failure.

    I don't think that a workers movement would 'dismantle' imperialism, as in disassembling certain specific social state machinery and not others. Sure, in the process of seizing the state the present-day foreign policy would be 'withered-away', since workers don't have an interest in repressing other workers internationally, but I'd say that's about it.

    Imperialism would be 'dismantled' along with all other functional features of the state and capitalism -- the way you phrase it it sounds almost *reformist*.
    I'm sorry, but this is complete Euro-chauvinism.

    Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

    And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?
    Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.
    "All reactionaries are paper tigers." Mao Tse-Tung
  3. #43
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default



    The material conditions for revolution in the first world require the end of imperialism before socialism can even be a possibility.
    No, not what they require: what are those conditions according to you?

    Also, if American imperial system was broken... the US would still be imperialist, just a looser one that would need to find it’s place in the new order. The UK didn’t stop being imperialist — it just doesn’t lead it anymore.

    In the first world, most people don't work in industry, yet they consume industrially produced goods. Wherefrom?
    on average, workers in the US spend up to 30% of their wages on consumer goods (25% of that on groceries not including household products like cleaning supplies, etc).

    Industrial jobs have declined, but not US industry - this is a common misconception in the US that’s used by the right. US industry has restructured, building new facilities (often in “right to work” states) with increased automation. For example, the docks in San Francisco were the heart of working class life here - employing 100s of workers - but logistics moved to Oakland where new cranes were built. One well paid crane operator now brings more value than 100s of low paid longshoremen at an overall lower labor cost. US shipping hasn’t declined - it facilitates billions and billions of dollars in trade, but the workforce has gone from thousands to hundreds while Bay Area tech companies invest in self-driving trucks to lower labor cost even more.

    But since US workers make the chips or equipment that make consumer goods possible to manufacture elsewhere suggests international links between workers are far more potentially powerful than the consumption of average US workers.

    The US is the 2nd largest manufacturer and 1st in the value of manufactured goods - mostly because the US doesn’t produce consumer goods - it produces factory equipment and tech and farm equipment. Most US exports are not consumer goods but US workers still produce huge profits for our masters.

    Third world-produced goods. The proletariat has been outsourced, one could say.
    Really just more investment outside the US and rearrangement of some production as US business scrambled to increase profitability after the declines of the 1970s.

    Yes, these tertiary laborers are oppressed. But is it fair to consider them exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, since they don't *produce* anything? I lean towards no (which brings me to the conclusion that the first world population in imperialist centers is largely parasitic, but that's a different story for a different time).
    yes, they produce profits and value. You are mistaking power in the economy (logistics - the #1 occupation for US workers and manufacturing are more economically central to capital, but restaurants and shops are still profiting from low-wage service workers. Amazon wouldn’t be trying to automate these very jobs if the point of that labor is just for imperialists to do a solid for US workers.

    I proposed that in the first world, since the population is largely privileged, even parasitic, and that revolution isn't a feasible goal, anti-imperialists in the first world have the obligation to do whatever we can to dismantle imperialism. In the first place, a very basic goal would be the dismantling of American military might abroad. While American military hegemony exists, national liberation is a near impossibility. Conscious first worlders can play a very active and very important role in this regard. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say everything I want to on this subject while remaining within the rules I agreed to when signing up, so I won't say much more on this point.
    if US workers materially benifit from imperialism, what does “consciousness” mean here? They would, instead, need to just feel a moral obligation since their class interest is in preserving imperialism according to this view.

    Frankly I don’t think you answered what the material conditions are because your terms and concepts are shadows and vapor, that do not reflect a reality where US workers must keep working to reproduce themselves, US profits and production is still dominant in world trade (despite relative decline after China in total output), and US and international workers are more linked now than at any time in history due to international production divisions of labor.
  4. #44
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default




    The material conditions for revolution in the first world require the end of imperialism before socialism can even be a possibility.



    I have trouble agreeing with everything you've said here. The janitor, the restaurant table waiter, the cashier, etc., these are all tertiary jobs, of course. Perhaps not the cashier in the long term, but for now, all these professions are socially necessary, even though they don't produce anything. The tertiary sector has grown enormous over the past few decades. In the first world, most people don't work in industry, yet they consume industrially produced goods. Wherefrom? Third world-produced goods. The proletariat has been outsourced, one could say. Yes, these tertiary laborers are oppressed.

    But is it fair to consider them exploited in the Marxist sense of the term, since they don't *produce* anything? I lean towards no (which brings me to the conclusion that the first world population in imperialist centers is largely parasitic, but that's a different story for a different time).

    I'm sorry, DW, but this is an *ignorant* view -- *of course* service-sector workers produce value, like that of conveying the product to the customer, it's just that such labor is intangible and tends to be internal-business-sided in its logistics. Service laborers are still *workers* because they get paid their wages and their surplus labor value is appropriated / expropriated by the boss.

    This parallels the point I made in my previous post about 'office-cleaning labor' -- and the laborer is often victimized with this mentality that conflates the *work role* with the *worker*. The work role of providing a service could easily be called *unnecessary* in logistical terms since all the customer would really need is an Automat or vending machine, but capital ownership ultimately signs-off on the service-culture paradigm (as for providing food and drinks in a retail setting), which is then the de-facto societal norm of 'customer service'.

    This doesn't mean that the *laborer* themselves is somehow *inadequate* or is pulling-a-fast-one on the customer -- that's just how business is set up under capitalism. We're *all* stuck in this particular social machinery for the time being.

    By conflating the duties of the service-sector work role with the actual worker providing the service, there's implicitly a *moralistic* line being made, as though the exploited service-sector worker is somehow proactively determining business policy and imposing such on the customer. I myself have heard the street term 'hustle' used inappropriately on a regular basis -- in the sense of where an individual is providing a micro-business service, and maybe even also a product -- and is implicitly denigrated as 'hustling' ('cheating') the customer when in fact the transactions are all identical in economic function to that of any other, 'legitimate', business.

    Note:


    • there exists no neutral definition of productive and unproductive labour; what is productive from the point of view of one social class may not be productive from the point of view of another.

    • from the point of view of the capitalist class, labour is productive, if it increases the value of (private) capital or results in (private) capital accumulation.

    ---



    Yeah, but I believe that the conditions which would lead to a possibility for revolution in the first world require an end to imperialism. Call it stagist if you'd like, but I don't believe revolution will happen here while the population continues to indulge itself in parasitic consumption.

    Okay, well, that's within your own latitude of discretion and opinion-making -- I *will* continue to call it 'stagist' because it's too prescriptive and rigid, concerning matters of revolutionary strategy.



    I proposed that in the first world, since the population is largely privileged, even parasitic, and that revolution isn't a feasible goal, anti-imperialists in the first world have the obligation to do whatever we can to dismantle imperialism. In the first place, a very basic goal would be the dismantling of American military might abroad. While American military hegemony exists, national liberation is a near impossibility. Conscious first worlders can play a very active and very important role in this regard. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say everything I want to on this subject while remaining within the rules I agreed to when signing up, so I won't say much more on this point.

    Okay, understood, and I do consider your line here to be valid, for whatever that's worth.



    I don't think it's particularly stagist. As we've learned from the lessons of the 20th century, *popular* nationalism is the only way the third world will dismantle imperialism at its core. The transition from popular nationalism/mass-led state capitalism (I refer you again to On New Democracy by Mao) to socialism is relatively smooth and not stagist.

    Okay, acknowledged.


    ---



    And, no, SIOC does *not* have any consideration for the global communist revolution, as far as I know.


    This is a misrepresentation of the Stalinist line. I developed this more in the thread on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

    Would you please provide a brief description here of any conceivable transition from various nationally-liberated struggles to a solidly *international* proletarian movement against bourgeois rule?



    Sure. But there are precise material reasons that the mass worker consciousness doesn't exist, as I mentioned above.

    Consumer-mindset buy-offs -- particularly through credit -- I gather -- ?



    M-L is insufficient in dismantling imperialism for the precise reason that it doesn't make it it's primary goal, as it needs to be. The failure to do so was, in my view, one of the several causes of its failure.

    Hmmm, okay, noted -- you may want to expound on this a little more.


    ---



    I don't think that a workers movement would 'dismantle' imperialism, as in disassembling certain specific social state machinery and not others. Sure, in the process of seizing the state the present-day foreign policy would be 'withered-away', since workers don't have an interest in repressing other workers internationally, but I'd say that's about it.

    Imperialism would be 'dismantled' along with all other functional features of the state and capitalism -- the way you phrase it it sounds almost *reformist*.


    I'm sorry, but this is complete Euro-chauvinism.

    I really don't see how -- you may want to provide your reasoning here. I think my point remains valid.



    Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.

    Understood. It's under your own discretion as to what you may want to provide here. I'm always glad to hear encapsulations, and am always willing to learn of perspectives that I haven't previously encountered before.
  5. #45
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    No, not what they require: what are those conditions according to you?

    Also, if American imperial system was broken... the US would still be imperialist, just a looser one that would need to find it’s place in the new order. The UK didn’t stop being imperialist — it just doesn’t lead it anymore.
    But if US imperialism were sufficiently dismantled (something English imperialism has not been, hence why it's still an imperialist power), through the breaking off of nations from the imperialist world to create their own world, the US population would be forced to restart its industry instead of consuming parasitically from the third world.

    on average, workers in the US spend up to 30% of their wages on consumer goods (25% of that on groceries not including household products like cleaning supplies, etc).
    That's my point...

    Industrial jobs have declined, but not US industry - this is a common misconception in the US that’s used by the right. US industry has restructured, building new facilities (often in “right to work” states) with increased automation. For example, the docks in San Francisco were the heart of working class life here - employing 100s of workers - but logistics moved to Oakland where new cranes were built. One well paid crane operator now brings more value than 100s of low paid longshoremen at an overall lower labor cost. US shipping hasn’t declined - it facilitates billions and billions of dollars in trade, but the workforce has gone from thousands to hundreds while Bay Area tech companies invest in self-driving trucks to lower labor cost even more.

    But since US workers make the chips or equipment that make consumer goods possible to manufacture elsewhere suggests international links between workers are far more potentially powerful than the consumption of average US workers.

    The US is the 2nd largest manufacturer and 1st in the value of manufactured goods - mostly because the US doesn’t produce consumer goods - it produces factory equipment and tech and farm equipment. Most US exports are not consumer goods but US workers still produce huge profits for our masters.

    Really just more investment outside the US and rearrangement of some production as US business scrambled to increase profitability after the declines of the 1970s.
    I said that the majority of the US population does not work in industry. I didn't say that the US has no industry. The fact that the majority of the US works neither in the primary nor secondary sector is a sign of the increasing parasitism of the US population. (And just because it's important, the majority of people who do actually work in industry or agriculture are migrant workers or minorities, not as an absolutism, but it's the general trend.)

    yes, they produce profits and value. You are mistaking power in the economy (logistics - the #1 occupation for US workers and manufacturing are more economically central to capital, but restaurants and shops are still profiting from low-wage service workers. Amazon wouldn’t be trying to automate these very jobs if the point of that labor is just for imperialists to do a solid for US workers.
    I'm well aware of the social necessity of the labor undertaken in the service sector. I've tried to be very clear about that. But the relations between capitalism and service workers is not the same as the relations between capitalism and industrial workers. According to Engels, the proletariat is a uniquely revolutionary class: 'In like manner, production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the production from individual to social products. The yarn, the cloth, the metal articles that now come out of the factory were the joint product of many workers, through whose hands they had successively to pass before they were ready. No one person could say of them: "I made that; this is my product."' Service workers are called service workers precisely because they don't produce anything, but perform services.

    if US workers materially benifit from imperialism, what does “consciousness” mean here? They would, instead, need to just feel a moral obligation since their class interest is in preserving imperialism according to this view.
    More or less, yes. They need to be conscious of the moral atrocity that is imperialism and the necessity in overthrowing it.

    Frankly I don’t think you answered what the material conditions are because your terms and concepts are shadows and vapor, that do not reflect a reality where US workers must keep working to reproduce themselves, US profits and production is still dominant in world trade (despite relative decline after China in total output), and US and international workers are more linked now than at any time in history due to international production divisions of labor.
    I'm very clear. The material conditions that could lead to revolution in the US requires the end of the parasitic nature of the majority of the inhabitants of the first world, which won't happen unless third world nations break away from the imperialist system.
    "All reactionaries are paper tigers." Mao Tse-Tung
  6. #46
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    I'm sorry, DW, but this is an *ignorant* view -- *of course* service-sector workers produce value, like that of conveying the product to the customer, it's just that such labor is intangible and tends to be internal-business-sided in its logistics. Service laborers are still *workers* because they get paid their wages and their surplus labor value is appropriated / expropriated by the boss.

    This parallels the point I made in my previous post about 'office-cleaning labor' -- and the laborer is often victimized with this mentality that conflates the *work role* with the *worker*. The work role of providing a service could easily be called *unnecessary* in logistical terms since all the customer would really need is an Automat or vending machine, but capital ownership ultimately signs-off on the service-culture paradigm (as for providing food and drinks in a retail setting), which is then the de-facto societal norm of 'customer service'.

    This doesn't mean that the *laborer* themselves is somehow *inadequate* or is pulling-a-fast-one on the customer -- that's just how business is set up under capitalism. We're *all* stuck in this particular social machinery for the time being.

    By conflating the duties of the service-sector work role with the actual worker providing the service, there's implicitly a *moralistic* line being made, as though the exploited service-sector worker is somehow proactively determining business policy and imposing such on the customer. I myself have heard the street term 'hustle' used inappropriately on a regular basis -- in the sense of where an individual is providing a micro-business service, and maybe even also a product -- and is implicitly denigrated as 'hustling' ('cheating') the customer when in fact the transactions are all identical in economic function to that of any other, 'legitimate', business.

    Note:
    I'm aware of the complexities of retail worker - customer relations. I don't mean to suggest that the retail workers are pulling a fast one on industrial workers as a general rule (looking within a nation and not in the context of imperialism).

    That doesn't change the fact that the relations between service workers and capitalism and between industrial workers and capitalism are very different. The industrial workers are visibly exploited. Imagine that there's a chair factory, and there are ten workers, and they collectively produce ten chairs an hour, just to keep numbers simple. If a chair is worth ten dollars, we could say that collectively, the workers produced 100 dollars per hour. If the workers are paid five dollars an hour, 50 dollars has been extracted from the workers. The exploitation is measurable. This is not the case within the service sector. If a service worker is paid ten dollars an hour, it's because the boss thinks that this service is worth more to the company than the wage paid, but there isn't a measurable exploitation.

    Okay, understood, and I do consider your line here to be valid, for whatever that's worth.
    Well, thanks

    Would you please provide a brief description here of any conceivable transition from various nationally-liberated struggles to a solidly *international* proletarian movement against bourgeois rule?
    As I've outlined briefly, the national liberation struggle *is* against bourgeois rule. There's no need to transition to fighting against bourgeois rule, because the struggles are one and the same thing. Internationalism comes when the nationally liberated nations have comrades. But no nation should be dependent on another. Once national socialisms (not Nazis, but I don't find a better description) exist virtually over the globe, or even in various regions, can we consider internationalism. But a variety of national alliances (think Soviet *Union*) can lead to internationalism. But I emphasize, reiterate that I don't *believe* we should pursue internationalism prematurely; not until the material conditions allow it.

    Hmmm, okay, noted -- you may want to expound on this a little more.
    As you may have mentioned in the other thread, the Soviet Union was looking to hedge out its place in the global economy, a global economy which was capitalist and imperialist. It would have been better for the Soviet Union to pursue a more national economy. They were right to support other revolutionaries, like in Spain, and to engage in economic activity with other revolutionaries, but the desire to hedge out a role in the global imperialist system was a big mistake.

    I really don't see how -- you may want to provide your reasoning here. I think my point remains valid.
    You don't want revolution in the imperialist centers to actively struggle against imperialism; you're content to see it slowly wither away as capitalist relations wither away. The end of imperialism is *essential* to the revolution. As I've mentioned, in my view, imperialism constitutes the fundamental contradiction of capitalism.

    Understood. It's under your own discretion as to what you may want to provide here. I'm always glad to hear encapsulations, and am always willing to learn of perspectives that I haven't previously encountered before.
    Roughly (and again, Mao says it better) the national bourgeoisie, because of its comprador, opportunistic nature, cannot be permitted to hold state power or be permitted to organize politically. However, economically, the bourgeoisie still serves a progressive role in the development of forces of production in economically backwards nations. Essentially, a nation would be led by a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, while the economy would be defined more by a state capitalism. As the productive forces become increasingly developed, the People's democratic republic seizes the enterprises and incorporates it into the state enterprises. (Industrialization in China didn't go according to planned, for a variety of reasons, but the model of revolutionary transition from popular nationalism to national and international socialism is nevertheless valid.) Here's a quote from Samir Amin, translated from French by yours truly: "The anti-imperialist/anti-feudal/popular and democratic (and not bourgeois democratic) revolution associates diverse classes and social, ideological, and cultural forces. It cannot be a revolution of the proletariat. Incidentally, the proletariat is hardly but embryonic and weak in all of the societies of the modern peripheries, up until today. The revolution must equally be a revolution by the majority of the peasants, oppressed and exploited. It must be from the important segments of the educated middle classes which express themselves as the revolutionary intelligentsia. It can neutralize (without removing) the political intervention of the local [i.e. national] bourgeoisie, which is engaged in slowing down [lit. putting the breaks on] the movement towards socialism. The revolution can even encourage the bourgeoisie in question from its natural comprador behavior to take national positions."

    And here's the document from Mao, from which Amin is inspired but not dogmatic adherent.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...2/mswv2_26.htm
    "All reactionaries are paper tigers." Mao Tse-Tung
  7. #47
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    I'm aware of the complexities of retail worker - customer relations. I don't mean to suggest that the retail workers are pulling a fast one on industrial workers as a general rule (looking within a nation and not in the context of imperialism).

    That doesn't change the fact that the relations between service workers and capitalism and between industrial workers and capitalism are very different. The industrial workers are visibly exploited. Imagine that there's a chair factory, and there are ten workers, and they collectively produce ten chairs an hour, just to keep numbers simple. If a chair is worth ten dollars, we could say that collectively, the workers produced 100 dollars per hour. If the workers are paid five dollars an hour, 50 dollars has been extracted from the workers. The exploitation is measurable.

    This is not the case within the service sector. If a service worker is paid ten dollars an hour, it's because the boss thinks that this service is worth more to the company than the wage paid, but there isn't a measurable exploitation.

    This is *bullshit* because the company *benefits* from that service and sells the final product -- possibly a service itself -- at a *profitable gain* compared to what it pays the worker in wages (consider the entertainment industry). *Of course* there's exploitation of *all* types of labor, blue-collar, white-collar, and pink-collar.


    [11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends






    ---



    As I've outlined briefly, the national liberation struggle *is* against bourgeois rule. There's no need to transition to fighting against bourgeois rule, because the struggles are one and the same thing. Internationalism comes when the nationally liberated nations have comrades. But no nation should be dependent on another. Once national socialisms (not Nazis, but I don't find a better description) exist virtually over the globe, or even in various regions, can we consider internationalism. But a variety of national alliances (think Soviet *Union*) can lead to internationalism. But I emphasize, reiterate that I don't *believe* we should pursue internationalism prematurely; not until the material conditions allow it.

    No disagreement here, though I myself wouldn't rule-out potential 'internationalizing' opportunities if they arose. (Why not have an international alliance within an entire industry, for example, perhaps that of energy or transportation workers -- ?)


    ---



    M-L is insufficient in dismantling imperialism for the precise reason that it doesn't make it it's primary goal, as it needs to be. The failure to do so was, in my view, one of the several causes of its failure.


    Hmmm, okay, noted -- you may want to expound on this a little more.


    As you may have mentioned in the other thread, the Soviet Union was looking to hedge out its place in the global economy, a global economy which was capitalist and imperialist. It would have been better for the Soviet Union to pursue a more national economy. They were right to support other revolutionaries, like in Spain, and to engage in economic activity with other revolutionaries, but the desire to hedge out a role in the global imperialist system was a big mistake.

    Okay, so the USSR's *aims* were off, particularly in not being proactively anti-imperialist.


    ---



    I'm sorry, but this is complete Euro-chauvinism.


    I really don't see how -- you may want to provide your reasoning here. I think my point remains valid.


    You don't want revolution in the imperialist centers to actively struggle against imperialism; you're content to see it slowly wither away as capitalist relations wither away. The end of imperialism is *essential* to the revolution. As I've mentioned, in my view, imperialism constitutes the fundamental contradiction of capitalism.

    Okay, thanks for the clarification -- it's a good point, being proactively countered to bourgeois imperialism.

    On the flipside we haven't seen the fully-expressed potential of communistic social relations -- perhaps it would cause an *avalanche* of mass participation, to the point where conventional currency-based exchanges *do* just fall-away as being uncompetitive with the new paradigm of collectivism and focus on use-values. Just thinking out loud....



    Roughly (and again, Mao says it better) the national bourgeoisie, because of its comprador, opportunistic nature, cannot be permitted to hold state power or be permitted to organize politically. However, economically, the bourgeoisie still serves a progressive role in the development of forces of production in economically backwards nations. Essentially, a nation would be led by a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, while the economy would be defined more by a state capitalism. As the productive forces become increasingly developed, the People's democratic republic seizes the enterprises and incorporates it into the state enterprises. (Industrialization in China didn't go according to planned, for a variety of reasons, but the model of revolutionary transition from popular nationalism to national and international socialism is nevertheless valid.) Here's a quote from Samir Amin, translated from French by yours truly: "The anti-imperialist/anti-feudal/popular and democratic (and not bourgeois democratic) revolution associates diverse classes and social, ideological, and cultural forces. It cannot be a revolution of the proletariat. Incidentally, the proletariat is hardly but embryonic and weak in all of the societies of the modern peripheries, up until today. The revolution must equally be a revolution by the majority of the peasants, oppressed and exploited. It must be from the important segments of the educated middle classes which express themselves as the revolutionary intelligentsia. It can neutralize (without removing) the political intervention of the local [i.e. national] bourgeoisie, which is engaged in slowing down [lit. putting the breaks on] the movement towards socialism. The revolution can even encourage the bourgeoisie in question from its natural comprador behavior to take national positions."

    And here's the document from Mao, from which Amin is inspired but not dogmatic adherent.

    See, I just see this kind of thinking over materials as being *backward* because the world has already created major capacities of material production in the past several decades. We're not in the fucking 1930s anymore, and we do *not* need to be dependent on a bourgeois-reliant, stagist mentality. *Of course* international ties of solidarity are possible, immediately, and more-advanced countries can pull-up lesser-developed countries in the course of internationalist proletarian revolution.


  8. #48
    Join Date Jun 2013
    Posts 624
    Rep Power 7

    Default

    Originally Posted by Jimmie Higgins
    Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

    And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?
    Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.
    The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.
    Last edited by Tim Redd; 21st March 2018 at 15:57.
  9. #49
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default

    TR, you got the tags wrong -- the first quote you included is from *me*, at post #40:



    Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

    And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?

    And the second quote is from DoctorWasdarb, at post #41:



    Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.


    The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.

    I don't think that this 'phase-ist' approach / strategy is valid, though -- what would be the group-*internal* dynamics and functions for those who are sweeping away the (national)-internal bourgeois elements -- ? Certainly those who are active in this de-colonization movement would have to either be collectively self-sustaining, or would have to be receiving material support from a broader population. At that point there would then be group-internal dynamics, *in parallel* to what's being done externally, to usurp bourgeois rule.
  10. #50
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    This is *bullshit* because the company *benefits* from that service and sells the final product -- possibly a service itself -- at a *profitable gain* compared to what it pays the worker in wages (consider the entertainment industry). *Of course* there's exploitation of *all* types of labor, blue-collar, white-collar, and pink-collar.
    When I was in high school I worked at a supermarket in the evenings. My job was to pull the items from the back of the shelf to the front, so that customers could reach it more easily. I didn't produce anything. The store didn't sell my service. I was paid ten bucks an hour, minimum wage. I for one do not think my job was worth ten bucks an hour, however, what I was doing was necessary to the internal functioning of the store. The relations are simply different than factory workers who create commodities and are paid specific wages compared to the market value of their commodities. The exploitation is visible. The goods arrive at the store because of the exploitation of farm workers (often undocumented immigrants). The store purchases the goods from the revenue it makes from selling. This money is paid in turn to the workers of the factory. In the case of a store, it's the consumers who bring the capital to the store, and the store managers distribute the capital as they see fit (accounting for various labor legislation, of course). The floor workers of the store don't have the same relations as a factory or farm worker. The cycle is the opposite for the latter. They produce the wealth. I didn't produce any wealth in the store, even though my labor was necessary to the everyday functioning of the store.

    And in a society in which the vast majority of the people work in the tertiary sector, oftentimes simply pushing money or papers around, the result is that the majority of exchanges that happen in such a society are based on exploited labor. Thus, the floor workers at the store, despite being *oppressed* by the store managers, are not exploited, but in fact, paid by exploited labor.

    Again, that is not to say that in socialist society we wouldn't have service workers - on the contrary. But a) we can't have an entire society built on such an economy, and b) in such a society where service workers make up the majority, the majority are thus not exploited and are incapable of carrying out socialist revolution, not until the fundamental international division of labor is put into question, where Africa provides all the resources for first world consumption.

    No disagreement here, though I myself wouldn't rule-out potential 'internationalizing' opportunities if they arose. (Why not have an international alliance within an entire industry, for example, perhaps that of energy or transportation workers -- ?)
    It's up to the workers of whatever country. If they have a comrade nation which would like to engage in economic cooperation in a certain sector, they may, but if they find it would lead to an exploitation of one by the other, that's there choice, and without more information, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with their choice.

    Okay, thanks for the clarification -- it's a good point, being proactively countered to bourgeois imperialism.
    I appreciate your admission.

    On the flipside we haven't seen the fully-expressed potential of communistic social relations -- perhaps it would cause an *avalanche* of mass participation, to the point where conventional currency-based exchanges *do* just fall-away as being uncompetitive with the new paradigm of collectivism and focus on use-values. Just thinking out loud....
    Again, it'd be ideal, but I'd be damned if it ever happened. It's idealistic. I wouldn't say no if it happened, but I have little faith in the spontaneity of mass revolt. There needs to be some kind of coherent ideological backbone.

    See, I just see this kind of thinking over materials as being *backward* because the world has already created major capacities of material production in the past several decades. We're not in the fucking 1930s anymore, and we do *not* need to be dependent on a bourgeois-reliant, stagist mentality. *Of course* international ties of solidarity are possible, immediately, and more-advanced countries can pull-up lesser-developed countries in the course of internationalist proletarian revolution.
    The logic of capitalism that has led to unequal development has not been resolved, despite the progress of the productive forces over the past decade. The productive forces have progressed, but the relations between the centers and the peripheries have changed little comparatively, in that the former continues to engage in super exploitation of the latter. Of course we've seen the change from direct colonial to indirect neo-colonial rule, but the relations remain largely the same.

    I don't think that this 'phase-ist' approach / strategy is valid, though -- what would be the group-*internal* dynamics and functions for those who are sweeping away the (national)-internal bourgeois elements -- ? Certainly those who are active in this de-colonization movement would have to either be collectively self-sustaining, or would have to be receiving material support from a broader population. At that point there would then be group-internal dynamics, *in parallel* to what's being done externally, to usurp bourgeois rule.
    I don't think this is far off. Full national liberation (in light of the limitations of the decolonization struggle and the non-aligned movement) requires engaging the masses. The limitations of the former have been shown by its failure to truly incorporate the masses into the decolonization process.
    "All reactionaries are paper tigers." Mao Tse-Tung
  11. #51
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default Conduct of Anglo-Saxons on this forum

    Yes your job was part of the chain of production. Most factories today have been sub-divided so even a factory does not create a finished commodity. At any rate, to realize exchange value, there must be the workers who extract raw materials, workers who then develop these materials, workers who then manufacture parts, assembly workers, logistics workers, shop workers etc. All these workers may work for different companies and work hundreds of miles away from each-other, but capital binds their fates.

    You are confusing relative power within a chain of production with production itself.

    These differences and the division of production into small functions is just part of the reason that a revolutionary class movement is required for socialism. The last US general strike was in my town. It began with women working retail in a department store, spread to local trolly drivers, then commercial drivers then dockworkers etc.

    The relative weak position of say Walmart workers would push a militant workers movement to practical solidarity with striking logistics workers and manufacturing workers in the US south or China or wherever else.

    The increased international character of production puts the need for genuine internationalism to the top of the agenda for any potential labor revival in this age.

    Your argument reeks of excusing away reality when you claim US workers who produce commodities with a great deal of value relative to their numbers are too well paid to revolt... but then if they aren’t paid well enough to make rent on the regular, they aren’t really workers because they don’t produce a tangible commodity themselves.
  12. #52
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    When I was in high school I worked at a supermarket in the evenings. My job was to pull the items from the back of the shelf to the front, so that customers could reach it more easily. I didn't produce anything. The store didn't sell my service. I was paid ten bucks an hour, minimum wage. I for one do not think my job was worth ten bucks an hour, however, what I was doing was necessary to the internal functioning of the store. The relations are simply different than factory workers who create commodities and are paid specific wages compared to the market value of their commodities. The exploitation is visible. The goods arrive at the store because of the exploitation of farm workers (often undocumented immigrants). The store purchases the goods from the revenue it makes from selling. This money is paid in turn to the workers of the factory. In the case of a store, it's the consumers who bring the capital to the store, and the store managers distribute the capital as they see fit (accounting for various labor legislation, of course). The floor workers of the store don't have the same relations as a factory or farm worker. The cycle is the opposite for the latter. They produce the wealth. I didn't produce any wealth in the store, even though my labor was necessary to the everyday functioning of the store.

    Would you compare this blue-collar (factory worker) (productive labor) - white-collar (store clerk) (unproductive labor) schism to the traditional 'field slave - house slave' schism -- ?



    And in a society in which the vast majority of the people work in the tertiary sector, oftentimes simply pushing money or papers around, the result is that the majority of exchanges that happen in such a society are based on exploited labor. Thus, the floor workers at the store, despite being *oppressed* by the store managers, are not exploited, but in fact, paid by exploited labor.

    If there's no exploitation going on with the wages of the store clerks then are they getting a suitably-proportionate split of the store's *revenue*, based on the work and labor hours that they put in -- ?



    Again, that is not to say that in socialist society we wouldn't have service workers - on the contrary. But a) we can't have an entire society built on such an economy, and b) in such a society where service workers make up the majority, the majority are thus not exploited and are incapable of carrying out socialist revolution, not until the fundamental international division of labor is put into question, where Africa provides all the resources for first world consumption.

    I think this is an *overreach* of the MTW 'superexploitation' theory -- as I've noted previously, I think the manifestation of this valid dynamic can best be seen in the realm of *consumption*. (Post #40.)


    ---



    No disagreement here, though I myself wouldn't rule-out potential 'internationalizing' opportunities if they arose. (Why not have an international alliance within an entire industry, for example, perhaps that of energy or transportation workers -- ?)


    It's up to the workers of whatever country. If they have a comrade nation which would like to engage in economic cooperation in a certain sector, they may, but if they find it would lead to an exploitation of one by the other, that's there choice, and without more information, I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with their choice.

    What the hell is a 'comrade nation' -- ? You're purposely *constraining* the latitude of a potential labor internationalism, for the sake of your particular political ideology.


    ---



    Okay, thanks for the clarification -- it's a good point, being proactively countered to bourgeois imperialism.


    I appreciate your admission.

    It's not an 'admission' -- it's an *agreement*. (I'm not your political *enemy*, as you seem to be implying with your particular phrasing.)


    ---



    On the flipside we haven't seen the fully-expressed potential of communistic social relations -- perhaps it would cause an *avalanche* of mass participation, to the point where conventional currency-based exchanges *do* just fall-away as being uncompetitive with the new paradigm of collectivism and focus on use-values. Just thinking out loud....


    Again, it'd be ideal, but I'd be damned if it ever happened. It's idealistic. I wouldn't say no if it happened, but I have little faith in the spontaneity of mass revolt. There needs to be some kind of coherent ideological backbone.

    Here's from the other thread:



    [D]uring the transition period the Proletarian state consciously and purposefully creates an adversarial system of two independent economic sectors with two dialectically opposing modes of production: capitalist and communist.

    The Communist sector (commune) is created exclusively on a VOLUNTARY basis from those who are willing to consciously apply the Communist production relations of the lower phase in practice. Inside the commune, proletarians cease to be proletarians because of the existence of self-management and the lack of a wage labour in the commune, there is a germ of classless society. The Proletarian state DOES NOT FORCE anyone into the Communist sector. For those proletarians who are not ready for Communist production relations, it is proposed to remain in the state-capitalist or private sector of the economy (in the private sector, a Union is mandatory).

    Human freedom is a fundamental point in Communist ideology. Freedom is above all freedom of choice. In the Proletarian state, proletarians (like all other levels/classes in society) are offered a free choice to join the Communist sector of the economy or to remain in the private or state-capitalist sector of the economy. If the Communist sector, implying a classless society, becomes more attractive to proletarians, the labor force will flow from the capitalist sector to the Communist. The commune will gradually grow to the size of the whole society, thus taking away labor resources from the private and state-capitalist sector. The Proletarian state will gradually wither away.

    This is the dialectical transformation of capitalist society into Communist society, transformation of the one into the other.

    ---



    See, I just see this kind of thinking over materials as being *backward* because the world has already created major capacities of material production in the past several decades. We're not in the fucking 1930s anymore, and we do *not* need to be dependent on a bourgeois-reliant, stagist mentality. *Of course* international ties of solidarity are possible, immediately, and more-advanced countries can pull-up lesser-developed countries in the course of internationalist proletarian revolution.


    The logic of capitalism that has led to unequal development has not been resolved, despite the progress of the productive forces over the past decade. The productive forces have progressed, but the relations between the centers and the peripheries have changed little comparatively, in that the former continues to engage in super exploitation of the latter. Of course we've seen the change from direct colonial to indirect neo-colonial rule, but the relations remain largely the same.

    Yup.


    ---



    Popular nationalism combines the best elements of the aforementioned models. It incorporates the mass leadership we see in M-L with the nationalist model of anti-imperialism we see in the latter, which creates a synthetic model which is uniquely capable of developing a country in a progressive manner.


    Okay, well national-liberation is certainly a valid strategy, but it *has* to be in a socialist-minded direction, otherwise it's just balkanization of bourgeois nation-states.

    And 'developing a country in a progressive manner' sounds too stagist as well -- is bourgeois-type 'progressivism' necessarily a prerequisite for mass class struggle and proletarian revolution -- ?


    Of course it needs to be socialist minded and not bourgeois minded. That's the *point* of popular nationalism, as opposed to bourgeois nationalism, because bourgeois minded nationalism doesn't attack imperialism at its core. I explained a bit about how it's not stagist above. If you'd like me to elaborate on what Mao wrote about New Democracy I can, but his own writing on the subject is better than whatever I could write here.


    The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.


    I don't think that this 'phase-ist' approach / strategy is valid, though -- what would be the group-*internal* dynamics and functions for those who are sweeping away the (national)-internal bourgeois elements -- ? Certainly those who are active in this de-colonization movement would have to either be collectively self-sustaining, or would have to be receiving material support from a broader population. At that point there would then be group-internal dynamics, *in parallel* to what's being done externally, to usurp bourgeois rule.


    I don't think this is far off. Full national liberation (in light of the limitations of the decolonization struggle and the non-aligned movement) requires engaging the masses. The limitations of the former have been shown by its failure to truly incorporate the masses into the decolonization process.

    Both you, DW, and TR, are not addressing my point that workers-state *internal* matters would inevitably exist throughout any and all conceivable 'stages', or 'phases'. TR makes it seem as though there would *be* no revolutionary-internal concerns or dynamics in the initial phase since all political activity would be oriented *outward*, to defeating colonial and neocolonial rule.

    In other words, both conceivable 'phases' would have both internal *and* external aspects, regardless.
  13. #53
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    Yes your job was part of the chain of production. Most factories today have been sub-divided so even a factory does not create a finished commodity. At any rate, to realize exchange value, there must be the workers who extract raw materials, workers who then develop these materials, workers who then manufacture parts, assembly workers, logistics workers, shop workers etc. All these workers may work for different companies and work hundreds of miles away from each-other, but capital binds their fates.


    Capitalism does not bind their fate. Some work in the imperialist centers, and others in the peripheries, and their fates are different as a result.

    You are confusing relative power within a chain of production with production itself.

    These differences and the division of production into small functions is just part of the reason that a revolutionary class movement is required for socialism. The last US general strike was in my town. It began with women working retail in a department store, spread to local trolly drivers, then commercial drivers then dockworkers etc.

    The relative weak position of say Walmart workers would push a militant workers movement to practical solidarity with striking logistics workers and manufacturing workers in the US south or China or wherever else.


    Of course solidarity can be built between all oppressed segments of society. That's not my point. My point is that the tertiarization of the first world leads to a qualitative change in the relation between the masses of the first world and production.

    Would you compare this blue-collar (factory worker) (productive labor) - white-collar (store clerk) (unproductive labor) schism to the traditional 'field slave - house slave' schism -- ?
    It's similar. The difference is that I go a step further and acknowledge the international division of labor here, in that the vast majority of the first world have become "house slaves" and the vast majority of the third world "field slaves." The fact that the former rarely interacts with the latter has an influence on their consciousness.

    If there's no exploitation going on with the wages of the store clerks then are they getting a suitably-proportionate split of the store's *revenue*, based on the work and labor hours that they put in -- ?
    Their "share" of the revenue is disproportionate to their need, hence why I think it's appropriate to speak of an oppression, although no one in the store is producing anything.

    I think this is an *overreach* of the MTW 'superexploitation' theory -- as I've noted previously, I think the manifestation of this valid dynamic can best be seen in the realm of *consumption*. (Post #40.)
    The fact that the first world has undergone major tertiarization leads to a change in their nature. It was formerly undeniably labor aristocratic, but now it's become truly parasitic, because of the international division of labor. The store example isn't the same in the third world, because it constitutes one segment of the oppressed masses. (I'd even say exploited, because all of society is exploited by imperialism, even though I don't think the term is appropriate for the store in the first world.) Almost all of first world society exists through purchasing (and redistributing in wages) wealth stolen from the third world.

    What the hell is a 'comrade nation' -- ? You're purposely *constraining* the latitude of a potential labor internationalism, for the sake of your particular political ideology.
    It's not just a nation with the same ideology. Here I am referring to two nations which are seeking independence from imperialism, and they provide each other aid - economic, military, etc. - in order to help break imperialism. But not all third world nations are like this. Saudi Arabia, for example. I wouldn't trust Saudi aid for a minute.

    It's not an 'admission' -- it's an *agreement*. (I'm not your political *enemy*, as you seem to be implying with your particular phrasing.)
    You're not a political enemy, but we have competing ideologies.

    Here's from the other thread:
    But the transition won't happen on a solely voluntary basis. The consciousness of the people needs to be changed, which needs to be a primary goal of the revolution. And we can't push this change in consciousness too quickly. This is one of the problems that the Chinese discovered during the Great Leap Forward. We need to guide this change organically.

    Both you, DW, and TR, are not addressing my point that workers-state *internal* matters would inevitably exist throughout any and all conceivable 'stages', or 'phases'. TR makes it seem as though there would *be* no revolutionary-internal concerns or dynamics in the initial phase since all political activity would be oriented *outward*, to defeating colonial and neocolonial rule.

    In other words, both conceivable 'phases' would have both internal *and* external aspects, regardless.
    I agree that there are internal and external aspects in all phases of the revolution. I don't get your criticism of my view.
    "All reactionaries are paper tigers." Mao Tse-Tung
  14. #54
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,151
    Rep Power 164

    Default Conduct of Anglo-Saxons on this forum



    Capitalism does not bind their fate. Some work in the imperialist centers, and others in the peripheries, and their fates are different as a result.

    so in order to survive, one group of workers must sell their time in return for wages while the other must, what..?

    Conditions for workers always vary, through time, location, industry, specific oppression, etc. But how is the class dynamic different for each?

    My point is that the tertiarization of the first world leads to a qualitative change in the relation between the masses of the first world and production.[/COLOR]
    what is that qualitative change in practical terms? What does the jargon mean in real terms? us workers would be unable to stop shipping, electricity, the internet, roads, agriculture... the flow of capital?

    It's not just a nation with the same ideology.
    how does a nation have an ideology? Do nations have wills and minds of their own?

    Obscured in this anthropomorphic abstraction must be class divisions. Who, concretely in actual societies, are the agents of what you talk about.

    Nations don’t do anything, people do things. So what people and for what reasons?

    But the transition won't happen on a solely voluntary basis. The consciousness of the people needs to be changed, which needs to be a primary goal of the revolution. And we can't push this change in consciousness too quickly. This is one of the problems that the Chinese discovered during the Great Leap Forward. We need to guide this change organically.
    who is “we” and who are the masses? What consciousness? Changed how?
    Last edited by Jimmie Higgins; 25th March 2018 at 10:21.
  15. #55
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,319
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    It's similar. The difference is that I go a step further and acknowledge the international division of labor here, in that the vast majority of the first world have become "house slaves" and the vast majority of the third world "field slaves." The fact that the former rarely interacts with the latter has an influence on their consciousness.

    Okay, so then you *agree*. I think it's a valid analogy, too.



    Their "share" of the revenue is disproportionate to their need, hence why I think it's appropriate to speak of an oppression, although no one in the store is producing anything.

    You really don't think that the service sector does any kind of labor that's necessary to capitalism's commodity-production -- ? I'll again agree that such 'pink-collar' work tends to be more internal to the business itself, but it *is* still commodity-production because the service workers are systematically robbed of their labor value, by capital. (Again consider the example of the entertainment industry -- do theater-goers really receive nothing by attending an evening event -- ?)



    The fact that the first world has undergone major tertiarization leads to a change in their nature. It was formerly undeniably labor aristocratic, but now it's become truly parasitic, because of the international division of labor. The store example isn't the same in the third world, because it constitutes one segment of the oppressed masses. (I'd even say exploited, because all of society is exploited by imperialism, even though I don't think the term is appropriate for the store in the first world.) Almost all of first world society exists through purchasing (and redistributing in wages) wealth stolen from the third world.

    The *problem* with this interpretation is that it's diverging from the actual-material reality -- both First World and Third World workers, in *any* sector, *are* exploited, and we see it clearly in the business-revenue-versus-wage-payments comparison, scaled up or down for any given geographic-local economy.

    Your insistence on your center-periphery paradigm makes it into an a-material, *solely social* designation, that ignores real economic *exploitation* that happens *everywhere*, regardless of geography. You're purporting *too much* of a schism within the working class, based on this center-periphery model, and you're ignoring labor value theory.



    It's not just a nation with the same ideology. Here I am referring to two nations which are seeking independence from imperialism, and they provide each other aid - economic, military, etc. - in order to help break imperialism. But not all third world nations are like this. Saudi Arabia, for example. I wouldn't trust Saudi aid for a minute.

    Okay, this is fine, and valid -- we see it all the time in history whenever some country wants to go off of petrodollars as the currency for their economy: Iraq, Libya, and now Venezuela, etc.



    You're not a political enemy, but we have competing ideologies.

    The Meanings of Spatial Relationships






    ---



    But the transition won't happen on a solely voluntary basis. The consciousness of the people needs to be changed, which needs to be a primary goal of the revolution. And we can't push this change in consciousness too quickly. This is one of the problems that the Chinese discovered during the Great Leap Forward. We need to guide this change organically.

    Note how the stock market has recently been stagnating, and slipping -- that's a major empirical factor that can do wonders for people's consciousness. (!)


    ---



    The process is "stagist" because during the first phase the tactical goal is to eliminate the rule of the colonial, and or neo-colonial powers and to sweep away internal bourgeois elements based upon colonial, or neo-colonial rule (i.e. the comprador bourgeoisie). The tactical goal of the second phase is to establish a socialist society that is a vehicle for the eventual achievement of communist society. In both phases there should be a dictatorship of proletarian class politics that is leading the movement through the those phases.

    [...]



    I agree that there are internal and external aspects in all phases of the revolution. I don't get your criticism of my view.

    I'm saying that TR's 'stages' is somewhat spurious since both 'phases' will have to have both internal and external components. It's a relatively minor point, but this particular delineation feels rather contrived as a result.
  16. #56
    Join Date Mar 2018
    Posts 71
    Rep Power 1

    Default

    You really don't think that the service sector does any kind of labor that's necessary to capitalism's commodity-production -- ? I'll again agree that such 'pink-collar' work tends to be more internal to the business itself, but it *is* still commodity-production because the service workers are systematically robbed of their labor value, by capital. (Again consider the example of the entertainment industry -- do theater-goers really receive nothing by attending an evening event -- ?)
    I'll emphasize the fact that I mentioned before, that yes, their labor is socially necessary. That is, we can't and shouldn't ignore the service sector, and indeed, in the third world, these workers are oppressed by imperialism, as all of society is. And as I mentioned, in the first world, this labor becomes uniquely unnecessary, because when the vast majority of society is based on such labor, coupled with a proportionately high standard of living, it becomes more parasitic off of the third world than anything else.

    The *problem* with this interpretation is that it's diverging from the actual-material reality -- both First World and Third World workers, in *any* sector, *are* exploited, and we see it clearly in the business-revenue-versus-wage-payments comparison, scaled up or down for any given geographic-local economy.

    Your insistence on your center-periphery paradigm makes it into an a-material, *solely social* designation, that ignores real economic *exploitation* that happens *everywhere*, regardless of geography. You're purporting *too much* of a schism within the working class, based on this center-periphery model, and you're ignoring labor value theory.
    I think you're ignoring the strong reality of this schism. A cross-class national alliance has been built between the workers and the bourgeoisie of the first world. Do you not see it? You won't get anywhere with your first world revolution until you dismantle it.

    In the third world, such an alliance has not been constructed, and can't be constructed with the bourgeoisie at the head, as has been shown by the 20th century. But because of the national alliances built in the first world which have led to more of a global national divide than a cross-class international divide and because of the primary position imperialism plays in the lives of the inhabitants of the third world, and the necessity of developing the country on an independent basis from imperialism, I have proposed national alliances, headed by the exploited masses, as the most revolutionary solution for the third world.

    Okay, this is fine, and valid -- we see it all the time in history whenever some country wants to go off of petrodollars as the currency for their economy: Iraq, Libya, and now Venezuela, etc.
    Just before the illegitimate, anti-democratic NATO invasion of Libya, Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi's plans for an African dinar based on gold had resurfaced, and, although I'd need to recheck my sources, I heard private emails around Clinton revealed that this was a big deal in the state department at the time. Since Africa is rich with mineral wealth, it would have provided real opportunities for Africa to move beyond imperialism. It also would have been a huge step forward for pan-African internationalism. (I call myself a nationalist, but I use this term loosely, because I'm a huge supporter of African unity, Latin American unity, etc. Just not unity with imperialist countries.)

    The Meanings of Spatial Relationships
    At least for me, I'd place our disagreements more on the far left of your diagram than in the center. They certainly aren't opposed, and I don't think they're really complementary either, at least not in the sense that I don't think it's that our views each cover the other's blind spots. But I also don't think that our views are pretty much the same, with mild disagreements. I think the fact that I put anti-imperialism in the primary position of the struggle and my opposition to Euro-internationalism puts our views more on the far left. Those differences are pretty consequential, I find.

    I'm saying that TR's 'stages' is somewhat spurious since both 'phases' will have to have both internal and external components. It's a relatively minor point, but this particular delineation feels rather contrived as a result.
    Gotcha. I can agree. I don't think such a stagist division of first outward than inward is beneficial. We need to be focused on both internal and external relations at all times. (Nevertheless, I find that the internal relations are more complementary to the external in that the relations with imperialism influence the internal relations greatly, and you can't fully examine the external without reorganizing the internal, hence my support for *popular* nationalism.)
    "All reactionaries are paper tigers." Mao Tse-Tung
  17. #57
    Join Date Oct 2017
    Posts 25
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    This thread went off on a tangent somewhat.
    Ted Grant was a gimp.

Similar Threads

  1. Hegelian Marxism?
    By Zoroaster in forum Learning
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 7th September 2014, 14:58
  2. Spring thunder on India's bosom -2
    By red cat in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 501
    Last Post: 19th April 2013, 11:38
  3. Vancouver's Volksfront
    By Sasha in forum Action & Anti-Fascism
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 17th May 2010, 05:24
  4. The Nazis and Monopoly Capital
    By Cassius Clay in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11th December 2003, 08:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts