Where does the U.S. get most of its profit?

[eat the world]

or let's put it like this:

MIM seeks to "prove" something which is false.

They claim the U.S. has no working class (except for pockets of immigrant labor, whole lives are essentially the same as in the third world.)

To prove this, they must employ raw sophistry. They come up with anti-marxist views on class, and anti-marxist analysis of how imperialism works, a totally-falsified view of history (the anti-marxisst writings of Sakai) etc.

And the mumbo jumbo about there not being exploitation in the U.S. is their attempt to be "scientific" -- and confuse people with a blizzard of non-analysis.

But look at a steel mill, where massive amounts of steel are produced. Workers receive wages. The capitalists accumulate massive amounts of surplus value.

those amounts are especially huge because of the high "organic composition of capital" (I.e. the ratio between variable capital and fixed capital -- i.e. the amount spent on wages vs. the amount spent on machinery). Because the U.S. is a highly mechanized place, with huge developed industries -- the organic composition is high. And so the absolute amount of surplus value extracted (if calculated per worker) is very high (compared to, say, a labor intensive sweatship with only sewing machines as constant capital).

This does not mean that the workers in the highly mechanized steel mill are more revolutionary -- it just means that massive amounts of surplus value can be extracted from them, because of the amounts of investment put into machinery.

If you want to analyse rev potential, you have to look somewhere else, and move beyond this side issue (this pink herring) spread by MIM's mickey-mouse non-analysis.

[Maz]

I agree. It seems that there is a big problem of missaplying incorrect methodologies to the problem. We can't oversimplify things, but let's just say that major problems occur when you try to apply a method not suited to a particular subject matter. Math is applicable to geometry, but may be less applicable to things as complex as human behaviour; which is why pretty much any attempt to apply math or statistical analyses to psychology or race theory has been proven wrong. It takes an all-round analysis, economic, political, cultural, to really understand the question, and its all got to be centred on the mass line of social investigation is you really want to get to the bottom of things.

[struct]

...And yet another example of RCPers thinking they're too good for evidence.

[Maz]

Speaking of methodologies... Me saying that you can't rely on statistics to understand social phenomena all of a sudden makes me an "RCPer". hmm.

[struct]

Uhm, yeah, pretty much.

[just another immigrant]

eat the world: MIM seeks to "prove" something which is false.They claim the U.S. has no working class (except for pockets of immigrant labor, whole lives are essentially the same as in the third world.)

Immigrants?!? Like Indians, Blacks, Mexicans in the South West.. doesn't it even occur to you that even your language smacks of white chauvinism?

Wasn't it Malcolm who said "we didn't land on Plymouth Rock! Plymouth rock landed on us!"

[romomeal]

etw says: They claim the U.S. has no working class (except for pockets of immigrant labor, whole lives are essentially the same as in the third world.)


Point of clarification:

Mexicans, Africans, Indians, Hawaiians, etc. are not immigrants. And I don't think MIM uses such chauvinist language to mis-chacterize these groups. I think MIM considers these groups captive nations.. I don't think MIM would ever consider these "immigrants" or merely "national minorities" as rcp-U.S.A. supporters do.

[kasama]

etw says: They claim the U.S. has no working class (except for pockets of immigrant labor, whole lives are essentially the same as in the third world.)


roman writes: "Mexicans, Africans, Indians, Hawaiians, etc. are not immigrants. And I don't think MIM uses such chauvinist language to mis-chacterize these groups. I think MIM considers these groups captive nations.. I don't think MIM would ever consider these "immigrants" or merely "national minorities" as rcp-U.S.A. supporters do."

I have never seen the RCP refer to Native people (or Hawaians, etc.) as "national minorities." They use the expression "oppressed nationalities" -- exactly to avoid the diminutive "minorities." (even though, literally, these peoples do form minority nationalities within the larger multinational U.S., and even are minorities in their major areas of concentration -- Hawaii, urban areas, black belt south etc.) I have seen it used in that precise way in their more theoretical work, in a description of Chicano people -- but not in any of their popular agitation.

One thing that is not clear: the MIMers often imply there is no working class in the U.S. -- and include Black proletarians among the corrupted. There were significant postings on 2ctw where they talked about people on welfare being parasitic etc.

I suspect that MIM is not close to the "captive nations" thesis, if you scratch them twice -- but think that most black people (who, for example, by their methods live better than Nigerians) are therefore "parasites blah blah blah."

[gangoffour]

kasama said:

One thing that is not clear: the MIMers often imply there is no working class in the U.S. -- and include Black proletarians among the corrupted. There were significant postings on 2ctw where they talked about people on welfare being parasitic etc.

I suspect that MIM is not close to the "captive nations" thesis, if you scratch them twice -- but think that most black people (who, for example, by their methods live better than Nigerians) are therefore "parasites blah blah blah."

As a MIM fan and activist on the Sakai/MIM side of the labor aristocracy, I'd say you should stop scratching and start reading.

www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/nationalism.html
www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/mt7.html

It seems rather ironic to see anarchists telling alleged Maoists to break down the surplus-value question between oppressor and oppressed nations. One would think Maoists would be the last to refuse to break down questions by nation and the first to take Stalin's advice to support national struggle against imperialism.

[notsocialdem]

redstar2000 said:

The matter that interests me in a discussion of this kind is what practical conclusions flow from the answer?

If capitalists derive most of their profits from the exploitation of "their" domestic working class, how does that affect what we actually say and do?

Conversely, if capitalists derive most of their profits from exploiting workers in "third-world" countries, what difference would that make in how we act?

The above is the definition of pragmatism and subjectivism, doing what "works" for Redstar's feelings about action instead of doing an analysis of the class structure and deriving a strategy from the tasks that need to be done. Redstar has nothing to do with Marxism. Marx never wanted political economy, analysis of class structure "embellished" to make you feel good Redstar, sorry.

[redstar2000]

notsocialdem wrote: Redstar has nothing to do with Marxism. Marx never wanted political economy, analysis of class structure "embellished" to make you feel good Redstar, sorry.

You "know" this, I presume, because Marx "spoke to you in a dream".

Your "parasite theory" is nothing but global Pol-Potism...and would not lead to "socialism" but instead to barbarism.

Remind me again who has "nothing to do with Marxism"...I forgot.

[redstar2000]

The reason the above argument is difficult for dogmatists to swallow is that they never conceived that surplus-value ever went to anyone but capitalists. The problem is that even in Marx's day, he believed that the unproductive sector appropriated surplus-value for itself, and not just capitalists, and that sector has grown tremendously in the imperialist countries in particular where it is not only large but rich. Appropriating surplus-value is the quintessence of the capitalist-class, but it is not empirically true that it appropriates all of it, so we have to revise our image of the class structure.

As a whole class and on average, just using this very conservative calculation, there is no net surplus-value extraction of the oppressor nation working-class by the oppressor nation capitalist-class.

A global calculation of surplus-value extracted from the Third World

Although the word "calculation" appears in both the title and the conclusion of this essay, there are no actual calculations (that I could find) in the entire document.

What there are are "estimates", piles and piles of "estimates". Many bourgeois economists are quoted -- sometimes favorably, sometimes critically.

A percentage (estimated) is multiplied by a figure (often estimated as well) and the result is "super-profit".

Insofar as an actual argument is put forward, it appears to run along the lines of "imperialist trade with the third world is not a 'free market'."

In other words, the neo-colonial regimes in the "third world" created and supported by imperialism force the workers and peasants to work for less than the socially-necessary value to reproduce themselves. They can "get away" with this because there is an enormous "reserve army of the unemployed" to draw from...someone who begins his/her working life at 15 (or even younger!) and dies childless at 30 can be easily replaced over and over again, as often as necessary.

This certainly sounds like a very plausible hypothesis, but it has a problem. As I understand it, multi-national corporations that build plants in "third world" countries actually pay slightly above average prevailing wages. They want to have "first pick" in the local labor market and that's an easy way to achieve that. The difference is small, of course, and the actual working conditions may be much harsher than otherwise prevail in the local economy.

But still...

It's when you get to how "super-profits" are distributed in the "first world" that the document becomes virtually incoherent.

"Numbers" and assertions are mixed, seemingly at random, to generate the impression that the capitalist class is "bribing" everyone that lives in the "first world".

Unlearned though I admittedly am in this field, I know enough to know that "impressions" are not calculations.

There's no fundamental reason in Marxist economics for capitalists to "bribe" workers...ever.

The author(s) concede this point in a backhanded way; note where they say "the unproductive sector appropriated surplus value for itself."

This suggests that the "unproductive sector" engaged in class struggle with the capitalist class and won a partial victory...a share of the plunder from the "third world".

But who engages in class struggle against the ruling class in a modern capitalist economy? Lawyers? Middle managers? Bureaucrats? Police?

No, in MIM's view, it's the "first world" working class who are the "unproductive sector" and their class struggle is for the purpose of securing a share in those "super-profits".

The more successful "first world" workers are in class struggle, the less they are workers at all and the more they become "parasites" on the "third world".

Consequently, it's the least organized, least conscious, and most backward parts of the working class who are or may be still "real workers".

When the janitors in Los Angeles organized to win a better wage, that was not a "step forward" but rather a "step backward into parasitism".

This yields an interesting, if unique, vision of how MIM's line might be implemented in practice.

Whenever "first world" workers go out on strike for more money or better conditions, the appropriate "Marxist" response is to scab!

"All those parasites ever want is more...fuck 'em!"

This is certainly a great "revision" of Marx's ideas about "class structure".

One which is worthy, in my opinion, of enthusiastic support in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

[reparations]

redstar2000 said:

Although the word "calculation" appears in both the title and the conclusion of this essay, there are no actual calculations (that I could find) in the entire document.

What there are are "estimates", piles and piles of "estimates". Many bourgeois economists are quoted -- sometimes favorably, sometimes critically.

OK, which of the following did you reject?
1) That there are foreign profits?
2) That there is "discrimination profits"? (Captive nation profits.)
3) That there is a transfer of surplus-value from the Third World productive sector to the imperialist countries' unproductive sector?

If you don't agree with what MIM said, what are you saying the "estimate" should be instead?

And since you are so utterly pragmatist, which of the above categories do you think can be ignored without damaging the future goal of the communist struggle?

Do you accept Marx's idea of productive versus unproductive labor and the connected theory of surplus-value, yes or no? And if "no," why should we be surprised you disagree with MIM?

Did you agree yes or no, with Marx that total profits (including things called other things in his day) should equal total surplus-value, but each individual capitalist's profits would not equal the surplus-value extracted by that capitalist except by fluke?

[redstar2000]

reparations wrote: OK, which of the following did you reject?

1) That there are foreign profits?

2) That there is "discrimination profits"? (Captive nation profits.)

3) That there is a transfer of surplus-value from the Third World productive sector to the imperialist countries' unproductive sector?

Points one and three seem reasonable; point two is very questionable in my view.

If an imperialist corporation operating in a neo-colony enjoyed an effective monopoly of that neo-colony's commodities and there was no other significant source for those commodities, that corporation could make a "super-profit"...for a limited time.

It would still be paying the socially necessary price for labor power in the neo-colony, but would be charging first-world consumers (and other capitalists) a "monopoly price".

As you know, rival capitalists dislike this sort of arrangement and will, in time, subvert and overthrow it.

They will seek to penetrate the neo-colony themselves, or seek comparable advantages in a different neo-colony, or develop technological substitutes, etc.

There are "super-profits" but they are always temporary.

And they are never used (in a conscious way) to pay workers "more" than the socially necessary amount for their subsistence and reproduction.

I think where MIM goes wrong in its version of "Marxism" is that you think "subsistence and reproduction" means something like what was described in Engels' The Condition of the English Working Class in 1844.

Anyone who lives any "better" than that "must be a parasite".

reparations wrote: If you don't agree with what MIM said, what are you saying the "estimate" should be instead?

I have absolutely no idea...and neither do you! A compilation of estimates is not a "calculation". It's a series of guesses.

Of course, you can (and do) claim that your estimates are "informed" or even "scholarly"...with confidence that few will have the training and background to challenge your accuracy.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't. If you challenged me to calculate the world distribution of surplus value, I'd freely decline on the sensible grounds that I don't know enough to handle that kind of problem...and would add that I don't think anyone does.

Going further, trying to calculate the answer to such a question and use statistics that were never gathered for that purpose in the first place involves a horde of specified and unspecified assumptions...any one of which could render your "answer" hopelessly inadequate.

And, "shameless pragmatist" that I am, I question the actual usefulness of an answer...even if it could be determined.

Suppose we actually knew the amount of surplus value produced by each and every worker in the world to the penny and who appropriated it? Updated on a weekly basis.

How would that help?

Don't we already know which parts of the working class are "at the bottom of the food chain" in any given capitalist country?

Isn't it obvious who is engaging in class struggle and who remains dormant (for the time being)?

What real purpose is served by hanging a (largely imaginary) number on these plainly visible social phenomena?

To make yourself "look more scientific"?

reparations wrote: And since you are so utterly pragmatist, which of the above categories do you think can be ignored without damaging the future goal of the communist struggle?

Door No. 2, please.

reparations wrote: Do you accept Marx's idea of productive versus unproductive labor and the connected theory of surplus-value, yes or no? And if "no," why should we be surprised you disagree with MIM?

Obviously there is such a thing as unproductive labor. The problem is defining that sector in a meaningful way...one that can actually predict who (in the short or long term) will be receptive to communism because it's in their class interest and who will not.

We know from history, for example (Petrograd, February 1917) that cops will actually fight to the bitter end against the proletariat...who would deny that cops are part of the unproductive sector who are paid from the capitalists' accumulated surplus value? Who would "expect" them to ever be receptive to communist ideas? As a matter of fact, fascism is their preferred ideology...it's in their class interests.

But when MIM blithely labels all white collar workers as "unproductive", "labor aristocrats", and "parasites"...you have just abandoned Marxism altogether.

You have to look at what people actually do in their labor and who they do it for. Your image of a "worker" seems to come from a Soviet poster from the 1920s or 1930s.

In the advanced capitalist countries, it's not like that any more.

reparations wrote: Did you agree yes or no, with Marx that total profits (including things called other things in his day) should equal total surplus-value, but each individual capitalist's profits would not equal the surplus-value extracted by that capitalist except by fluke?

It ought to be "pretty damn close"...at least most of the time.#nosmileys#nosmileys

[reparations]

redstar2000 said:

reparations wrote: OK, which of the following did you reject?

1) That there are foreign profits?

2) That there is "discrimination profits"? (Captive nation profits.)

3) That there is a transfer of surplus-value from the Third World productive sector to the imperialist countries' unproductive sector?

Points one and three seem reasonable; point two is very questionable in my view.

I don't think MIM would be picking this sort of racist social-democrat like Redstar2000 to be a moderator
on the "Central Committee" of this bulletin board the way RCP=U$A has.

This is just another reason that Redstar2000 and RCP=u$A need to be "written off." Anyone who can't see this point can only be justified only ONE way--and that is by saying everyone legally in the united $tates is bought-off--which is not what Redstar2000 is doing. Redstar2000's combination of views is racist social-democracy, in fundamental substance no different than RCP=U$A's views. Redstar2000 and RCP=U$A both believe there is net surplus-value produced in the united $tates by legal "workers"; yet they don't believe in discrimination profits. It's as clear an indication as you can get that they don't really intend to abolish racism/national chauvinism.

It's also proof that contrary to what RCP=U$A's Avakian has said, the class structure question is not "academic." This uncovers something at the root of Redstar2000's views.