|
Post by fire on Feb 9, 2005 10:20:03 GMT -5
redbook is exactly right. There is a distinction between exploitation and oppression. Exploitation is specifically tied to Marx's theory of surplus value. Oppression is a broader condition. For example, Amerikan women are oppressed by sexism and patriarchy, but they are not exploited. Redbook is exactly right when he says that Amerika has become so decadent that even captive nations within the imperialist boarders have become bought off. This is the biggest probelm with _Settlers_ by John Sakai. Reading it, one is left with the impression that some kind of alignment of captive nations within US boarders wil be the main thing to bring down the US. When, in reality, many captive nations will side with White Amerika as junior partners.
He is also right about the importance of MIM's work on parasiticism.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on Feb 10, 2005 21:18:12 GMT -5
redbook is exactly right. There is a distinction between exploitation and oppression. Exploitation is specifically tied to Marx's theory of surplus value. Oppression is a broader condition. For example, Amerikan women are oppressed by sexism and patriarchy, but they are not exploited. Redbook is exactly right when he says that Amerika has become so decadent that even captive nations within the imperialist boarders have become bought off.
So , in your view and in the view of mim . Nation's and genders can be opprssed in the superstruture , but equal with the oppressor's in base ?
|
|
|
Post by flyby2 on Feb 10, 2005 21:42:30 GMT -5
actually, there are mountains of confusion here.
Let's just point out this:
No where in marxism is there the notion that only people who produce surplus value can be revolutionary.
Many important sections of the proletariat don't produce surplus value.
And that is because many sections of the proletariat (including important ones in the U.S.) are unemployed.
Youth in the proletariat have great revolutionary potential -- tho many don't produce surplus value (and some never will).
the unemployed wives of employed workers often don't produce surplus value -- but are part of the proletariat, and have great contributions to make to revolution.
Prisoners are a part of the proletariat that often doesn't produce surplus value. (Since, of course, doing prison laundry is work, but not the self-expansion of capital!!)
In addition, the notion of "parasitism" is completely distorted.
The U.S. imperialist economy is parasitic (in the sense that it rests heavily on the sucking of blood from the rest of the world, and because much of its superstructure and base is entwined with that global exploitaiton.)
However, the idea that "anyone who doesn't produce surplus value is parasitic" has nothing to do with marxism.
And the idea (which mim types have put forward) that waitresses are parasites, and even black women on welfare are "parasites" -- these arguments are so openly reactionary, that I'll assume virtually all readers of this thread can see it.
Also, the analysis of class is an analysis of class, not of individuals.
Marxist class analysis is fundamentally about the relationships of classes (which are groups of people in society) not a label for each individual (since many individuals often are complex to "pin" as one class or another -- a kid from a poor family who fixes cars for neighbors to make a living, is he a proletarian or what? He is a proletarian, but his position is in flux like many youth.)
The proletariat is a class. It has retired people (who don't produce surplus value, and certainly are NOT "parasites"), and unemployed sections (even permanently unemployed), and youth, and many tiers of employed.
in short, the whole vision of our class given by the MIM types here is reactionary -- and hostile to the proletariat and the revolution.
It is (to repeat once again) just a stack of arguments to justify a cranky, meanspirited, misantropic view that the masses are bought-off shits (a view that is deeply marked by Identity politics, and not marked by MLM at all!)
|
|
|
Post by VirginMolotov on Apr 5, 2005 14:02:34 GMT -5
It seems to me as though:
a) The (North) American proletariat continues to grow. The outsourcing of jobs does not somehow lift segments of the proletariat up out of exploitation, but reflects global intra-worker competition, and generally makes everybody's conditions more miserable.
b) Workers in first-world "service" industries do produce surplus value. While it's arguable that their labour is pretty useless in any realistic context outside current absurdities, the process of scanning yr bag-of-chips at the supermarket is necessary (the chips are worth nothing if there is no mechanism allowing them to be sold), and adds value that is incorporated in the chips' price. It is the labour of the cashier that turns useless chips-in-store into a commodity which one purchases. It seems to me that their (likely shitty) wage reflects a portion of the value added to the commodities that pass through their hands . . . just like other workers. And just like other workers, the boss appropriates the difference between the wage and the value they create . . . Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
|
|
Mischa
New Member
Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist
Posts: 16
|
Post by Mischa on May 9, 2005 6:13:49 GMT -5
One point I wanted to address before I get some sleep...
I think women are both oppressed and exploited by capitalism. For one, a woman makes what is it now, $.70 to the man's $1.00? They do 80% of the housework, to raise another generation of wage slaves under capitalism, which isn't even bringing race into the issue. Black women make even less than white women, as do other minorities, especially latinos.
And I wanted to say that I agree with Molotov's points.
|
|
|
Post by solsol4400 on Jun 18, 2010 15:20:36 GMT -5
In my opinon, nobody particularly is the proletariat. From what I know of Marx, there is a class called unstimulated parties in society, as I decide to call it. They are infavorably placed, so they become workers. The first thing I said here can be taken with a bit pinch of salt, but what important is that...
The term itself is roman slaves. Prole.info concludes proletarians to be - wage slaves. But it's really a bit more to it than that. It doesn't say who is or has become it, who is -likely- to become it is another thing. This is no time for being a seer or a prophet...but leaders and guru's are needed to survive, if not thrive...in the "wasteland".
However....and there is a big but... (not a butt) it's those who have been doing something before of work experience that usually end up becoming more exploited and enslaved..but I don't know if we could call them proletarians, but I will, regardless...
and if you don't have no work experience then there is little to be known what happens to you. You might end up anywhere. You are "the jokers card" of society. You might, in what appears here, become artist - independant buisnessperson - or something else..but it definately is hard on this path.
so. it boils down to what I think is we should concern ourselves with commodities...and health is a commodity in society it becomes a bargaining - a good health for a good job. You prove you have a good body, then you...are good for applying. Some people say there is no slavery in today's society. It is debatable. The medical examinations become the gatekeepers of getting trough to controlling your destiny in the working market...
- Solsol45
|
|