|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 11:51:57 GMT -5
The following posts are from various places where people have debated against the idea that there is no prol in the US, and related ideas.
Hope folks find this helpful.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 11:54:58 GMT -5
The following is from the debate at 2changetheworld.infoThe proletariat in the U.S. is multinationalMIM’s view is that in the imperialist citadels such as the U.S., the majority of workers are labor aristocrats. Along with this, they say "the national and class questions have merged in the U.S." I.E. to the degree they see a proletariat in the U.S., it's all oppressed nationalities (which they apparently don't seem to see as divided into classes), and white workers are all part of the enemy and have a material interest in defending imperialism. This kind of superficial and crass method of analysis confuses many honest people. It's the case that tens of millions of oppressed people and immigrants are locked into caste-like conditions within the lower rungs of the proletariat in the U.S. If you live in the inner cities like New York or L.A., it seems they’re all you see filling up the sweatshops, low wage services, and factories. But there are also tens of millions of white proletarians whose conditions of life/work are far from idyllic, from the Pacific Northwest to the rural South. Rosa (rl) wrote (from rural Georgia, so I assume her description includes some or many white workers): "Unionization here is next to non-existent, yet there are plenty of productive workers in everything from bob's candy company (just closed throwing nearly 600 people out of work), to ice cream cone plants, the cotton mill, chicken processing plants and so on. Then there are people working in the service industry, many also receive welfare benefits."In a painfully moving RW article (10/7/2001) "Alabama Mine Explosion: Thirteen dead at Blue Creek #5", Mike Ely unearths the situation for rural proletarians: "Every one of those 300 miners in No.5 knew they were in danger. They knew something was wrong with the ventilation. And so did the company... It says something about working class life, about capitalism, that the miners returned anyway, day after day, to be lowered into that shaft to dig the coal.... Many of the workers had traveled far to find work here at Brookwood. Groups of them had moved from the southern tip of West Virginia... where the huge complex of U.S. Steel mines shut down in 1986. Many came because they were in the their '50s, and needed to work several more years in the mines to get their pensions. They would lose those pensions if they took other kinds of jobs. These workers were trapped, forced to work--despite the danger."Such is the multinational proletariat in the U.S. (though not yet class conscious) all of whom have a material interest, and basis, to see the need to overthrow capitalism-imperialism. Even the relatively privileged sections (e.g. coal miners) are fucked over big time (why some go postal!) Whatever crumbs/privileges these workers receive (e.g. better wages, being white or living in the imperialist U.S.), they pay for it with their misery as members of the exploited class, and some pay with their very lives. The proletariat in the U.S. are not mere abstractions! (see Rafael's two posts in this thread). Our DP says: "The bourgeoisie works overtime to keep the masses of proletarians from seeing their common interests and their mission as a class. They create desperate conditions in communities and force the masses to compete against each other for jobs and survival. They spew out racist ideas that lie about people's cultures. They try to conceal what proletarians of all nationalities have in common and the real strengths that exist in their differences.
"This does not mean that the proletariat cannot fulfill its revolutionary mission. What it means--what it powerfully demonstrates--is that the proletariat needs its politically advanced and organized detachment, its vanguard party, to enable it to recognize and to carry out this revolutionary mission."...and part of the international proletariat From the same RW article by Mike Ely: "Across the world, working people face these terrible conditions and disasters--when they enter the earth to enrich the owners. The same week...20 workers, including nine women, were crushed in a massive cave-in in eastern India....Last month...a methane explosion killed at least 14 miners in western Romania...." From an L.A. Times article, January 2002: "China leads the world in coal production--and in lives lost in the mines. About 5,400 coal miners perished in explosions and other accidents during the first 11 months of last year....Some estimates put the annual death toll at 10,000...
"'Of course I plan to go back down'" the 33-year-old father of two said. Since he lost his job a few years ago at a large state mine, where he had worked since he was 17, Li has toiled at several private operations and narrowly skirted death in two explosions...."'My family needs the money, I don't know how to do anything else.'" This is just one industry but the words of this 33-year-old miner could have been spoken in English, Chinese, Hindi, Romanian and many other languages. The international proletariat is no mere abstraction either — its existence, objective interest and revolutionary potential. Unity in the struggle, dolly veale, RCP, SF
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 12:02:41 GMT -5
also from 2changetheworld.info - a post by RepZent Jenifer writes: "The life and death struggle being waged in palestine, nepal, peru, colombia, philippines, etc. is not dependent on what is happening here. Since the principal contradiction is between imperialism and oppressed nations.Ayacucho writes: "the labor aristocracy is a majority (not a token few) in this country. It has a material interest (not because it is brain-washed or misled)in the imperialist war and plunder... That is why the principal contradiction in the world today, is that of between imperialism and oppressed nations."In an earlier post Ayacucho runs out the same idea as an argument why revolutionaries should not lead struggles of hte masses but should focus on the struggles of others: "It is not because of "lack of sophistication", or being brain-washed by the media or as the trots love to say because of the mis-leaders of the trade-union bureaucracy. The principal contradiction today is between imperialism and oppressed nations. So,i think the party should do its work from the vantage point of the international proletariat. Like how to concretely (besides propaganda work) help the people's wars raging in peru, nepal, turkey, india, philippines. How to stop military intervention in colombia,iraq etc." Does anyone else catch a theme here? And I think a wrong one. This argument (which I assume is from the MIM organization) suggests that since the division of the world into imperialism and the oppressed countries, that this contradiction has been "principal" -- meaning (in their view) that the cutting edge of the world revolution has been fixed along those lines. This is one-sided(to put it kindly). The split in the world (and the subsequent lopsidedness of its economy and class structure) is a huge aspect of life on the planet earth today -- and deeply impacts the world revolution. But it is not the only contradiction, and it is possible for other contradictions to produce revolutionary motion. Maoist analysis has historically held that there are four main contradictions on a world scale: a) the imperialist vs oppressed countries and peoples b) the contradiction between capitalism and socialist countries (when there are such countries) c) the contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeosie d) the contradiction between imperialist countries. These contradictions are intertwined and play a complex role in relatinship to each other. Clearly the interimperialist ocntradiction (in both world wars, for example) have made other contradictions much more acute -- and given impetus to sharp conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and also to the rise of anti-colongial struggles in the third world (after world war 2). But it is not true that the imperialism vs oppressed countries is the only one, or the only one that has been principal in the last century. Perhaps more the point: the fact that this contradiction may be principal today (on a world scale, for now) does NOT mean that the bourgeoisie-proletariat contradiction (in the U.S. or on a world scale) can't intensify, or erupt massively, or lead to revolution in imperialist countries, or even become the principal contradiction for a while. The interimperialist contradiction has been principal at times (world war 1, world war 2, the 1980s between U.S. and Soiet social imperialism) -- but that didn't prevent the peoples war in Peru (for example) from being launched during the 1980s. The RCP says today is a "Period of major transition with the potential for great upheaval". There is a lot of flux, including (IMO) affecting all three of the existing "main contradictions on a world scale" (since one of the four contradictions doesn't exist when, like now, there is no existing socialist country). As opposed to the mechanical, pessimistic view that says "the workers of the imperialist countries are hopelessly corrupt, revolution can only come from the third world, the current principal contradiction is fixed" -- this is a view that sees imperialism and the world as a cauldron of contradictions with possibilities of great leaps. So whenever these posts use "Principal contradiction" they are using a maoid language, but departing from the larger approach and summation involved in this issue of "four main contradictions on a world scale." A note on rigid thinking: There is a big component in all of the MIM posts of "what is possible is what is." If some workers today express patriotism, then it must be that it is their interests, their nature (their "virus"?). If for long periods, the world revolution was heavily weighted toward the "storm centers of reolution" in the Third World -- then this historical fact become a fact for the future too. But didn't the 60s suddenly erupt iin Europe and Norht America too? Didn't May 1968 erupt like a thunder clap in France, and echo the revolutions of the third world (and the Cultural Revolution in China)? There is a lot of flux and change and potential in the world. Contradictions exist, but they also interpenetrate. That which is secondary now, may shock and thrill us later. ------------------------------------------------------------ This use of "principal contradiction" also distorts Mao. Mao wrote on this aspect of dialectical analysis in his famous speech "On contradiction" www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/08.htm#s4"There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions. " I.e. the principal contradiction is not "the only one happening" (as the MIM analysis makes it sound) -- it is the one that "influences the development of the other contradictions." It provides important context for the other contradictions. It is not a matter of "we shouldn't lead struggle of the masses in the U.S., because the principal contradiction says revolution can only ocme from oppressed countries." A correct understanding of the principal contradiction leads to a reaffirmation and appreciation of the interdependence of the world revolution, the importance of applying and promoting internationalism as revolutionaries prepare minds and organize forces for revolution in the imperialist countries too. Obviously we need to provide internatinalist support in varous ways for the cutting edge struggles of the globe Clearly we must fiercely and energetically oppose U.S. interentions, wars and crimes. But we must not do it in a way (or guided by an outlood) that assumes that nothing more is possible here, or (even worse) that insists that the broad masses of people (and workers even!) can't and won't be won to opposing these U.S crimes because it is in their interests. Becuase that is a swamp of pessimism, passivity, self isolation, and capitulation. ------------------------------------------------------------ Lenin talked about those who said "Dreams of revolution proved illusory and it is not the job of marxists to fight for illusions." A tired, beaten approach, of those who can't imagine how the present can give to a radically different future.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 12:09:10 GMT -5
Also from 2changetheworld.infoSubject: Let's Get Real: The Proletariat Posted by: QED Bryant writes: When it is said that the majority are labor-aristocrats who have a stake in the imperialist war and plunder it means their xenophobia, jingoism, chavinism, hegemonism, militarism emanates from their material interest, not because they are mis-informed. For example the largest public investor is the california public employees union with its 500 billion investment portfolio :cattle-ranching in argentina, shares in a colombian oil company or a gold mine in peru or a stake in a golf-course in philippines or in a himalayan tour company in nepal. It doesn't like its property to be confisicated or the value of its stocks to decline. The argument is made that most people in the U.S. have an objective interst in the system and in the empire. Arguments have been made in this discussion that imply that most people are profoundly reactionary, and that their reactionary politics actually correspond with their interests. This is obviously a pessimistic approach. It leads some participants to argue that it would be good thing (for the people of the world) if all demand by people in the U.S. for a better life were defeated by their oppressors. Since that (in this upside down view) this victory by the oppressors would make these people less privileged etc. This argument is (as has been said) both counterrevolutionary and wrong. I'd like to touch on a few points, and I hope others will join in. One chilling statistic: The poorest ten percent (economically) in the U.S. makes more than twice the top ten percent in Nigeria. Now standard of living is not just a matter of income (Peasants who grow their own crops often have no money but eat ok.) But still that is a stark example of inequality on the world scale. This is true, but it is not the only truth. I think the argument that denies that there are any white people who are oppressed in the U.S. (which is what MIM says, I believe) or that talks about the lower sections of the proletariat in the U.S. "infected with the parasitism virus" (as Jenifer did in this thread) raises a secondary aspect to deny the principal aspect of the contradiction. Do people living in the U.S. benefit from living at the heart of an empire? Yes. This is obviously especially true of the ruling class, and also those with real money -- the many different layers of wealth and privilege. And this is also true (I believe) of all strata, frankly, to some degree -- but that question of degree is exactly part of the issue. Homeless people in St. Louis are homeless, but the garbage they rummage through may be better garbage than in (say) San Salvador. A kid beaten by the cops in Baltimore may end up in a more high tech hospital than a kid beaten by the cops in Cairo. Miners die deep underground in the U.S. (as dolly pointed out in her post) -- but the conditions are even more monstrous and murderous in India's mines. But does that mean that the kid in Baltimore has an interest in the death of that kid in Cairo? What then defies the class interests of people? Is any passing connection to imperialism a "virus" that taints those touched with "parasitism"? Is that how we tell? If you eat a banana or drink coffee (that is harvested with the suffering and sweat of the people) does that mean that supporting imperialism is in your ultimate and largest interests? I think that view is superficial, wildly moralistic, pessimistic and frankly unreal. Bryant pulls the following argument out with a flourish: For example the largest public investor is the california public employees union with its 500 billion investment portfolio :cattle-ranching in argentina, shares in a colombian oil company or a gold mine in peru or a stake in a golf-course in philippines or in a himalayan tour company in nepal. It doesn't like its property to be confisicated or the value of its stocks to decline. Well again, does that mean that because the bankers running these portfolios would rage at confescation, every retired social worker (with years of contact with the masses and intimate knowledge of their conditions) must of necessity have interests against confiscation? Don't people have passing, partial, immediate, and superficial interests that are sometimes in deep contrast to their larger, overal, historic interests? Just because a white worker may have an easier time getting a job than a Black kid -- does this mean that white racism is in the deepest interests of white workers, and does it mean that uniting together to create a new world and real equality is not in their interests? I don't believe it. And the proof of this lies in a deeper look at the lives of the oppressed in the imperialist countries, the dynamics of their lives and struggle. There are tens of millions of proletarians in the u.s. who literally have nothing to lose but their chains. They are proletarians in that "classic" Marxist sense. And many are Black and immigrants. But there are tens of millions among them who are white. (including the majority of people on welfare who have always been white etc.) Those truly with an interst in imperialism are small. And those inbetween are sizable -- and among them are the more stable, and sometimes even relatively privileged sections of the working class (relative to the other workers, not comparable to real ruling class privileges.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 12:22:48 GMT -5
Subject: Example of the So-Called "Hardhats" Posted by: Area Man on 2changetheworld.infoGeorge said, "It is not just crumbs that they get but wages more than the value of their labor-power (benefits stock options vacation pay 401k plan pensions etc.) from the massive transfer of value (billions every day) from the third world which is not just exploited but super-exploited. It is this stark reality that created the most reactionary working class in human history…Who is real or live in the dream world. Do you remember the hard hats in new york city who attacked the anti-war movement in the 70's."Ok, let's take the example of the "hard hat" attack in 1970s. To George, this so-called "hardhat" movement supposedly helps prove his allegation that the U.S. workers are, as a whole, reactionary (especially the white workers) and (in addition) that this reaction is in line with the real class interests of the majority of workers (who are supposedly well served and bribed by imperialism). In fact, the real history of the hardhat movement actually shows how this line and appraisal of white workers is wrong. It confirms the class analysis embodied in the RCP's Draft Programme. Who were "the hard hats"?In May 1970, the U.S. government expanded the Vietnam war with an invasion of neighboring Cambodia -- and a huge explosion of resistance broke out across the U.S., including a massive strike of college students that shut down hundreds of campuses. On May 8, as a militant antiwar march was going through New York's Wall Street, they were suddenly attacked by about 500 pro-government construction workers. This attack was followed by similar actions in a few cities, as construction workers waving flags attacked anti-war marches. These events were given headlines by the mainstream media. The Nixon administration (which was increasingly isolated and defensive) tried to portray this attack as a sign that the so-called "silent majority" was finally taking the streets in support of his war policies. It was called the "hard hat" movement because Nixon and co. wanted to say that these fascists spoke for the working class, and for "ordinary Americans." However, this "hard hat" attack was not some spontaneous outburst of reactionary sentiments among the workers. This hardhat movement was conceived, approved, organized and unleashed at the highest levels of the government -- in the White House itself. The Nixon administration was working day and night to organize all kinds of violent suppression of antiwar protests -- including the massacre at Kent State. The head of the notoriously reactionary and racist Building Trades Unions, Peter Brennan, was personally tapped to organize these "hard hat" assaults (and received a cabinet post as Secretary of Labor). Reactionary construction workers willing to participate in such attacks were released from work by their employers and received full pay. HardHats did not speak for workers as a wholeThere was a social base within the population supporting the government, the war and also the suppression of antiwar protests. The antiwar movement had started with a small minority and waged a hard uphill fight for public opinion. Only by the end of the 60s was this movement clearly speaking for a huge chunk within a highly polarized population. There were certainly numbers of workers, among the reactionary pro-war camp, and they were clearly concentrated in the most privileged sections of the working class. And this small "hardhat" phenomenon was created, by the ruling class, from that social base. However, this hard hat movement is not, as George suggests, proof of the reactionary nature of white workers as a whole, or of the union movement as a whole, and certainly it is not proof that the war in Vietnam was (somehow) in the interests of the masses of white workers (!) The hardhat movement was specifically based among the highly skilled construction trades -- and organized by craft unions that were notoriously segregated, white racist, superpatriotic, abusive to women and reactionary in just about every other way. In other words, this was a political movement specifically among the group that RCP Draft Programme identifies as "the labor aristocracy." Defining them, the Draft Programme writes: A minority, but still significant number, of workers make up what Lenin called an “aristocracy of labor.” These workers tend to be highly skilled craft and precision production and repair workers, employed in various industries from construction to telecommunications. They receive crumbs well beyond what has been passed along to the privileged sections of unskilled and semiskilled industrial workers in mass production industries. They have become a more or less permanently bourgeoisified group. While keeping the door open to winning some of these workers to the cause of revolution, the class-conscious proletariat must fiercely combat the influence of this labor aristocracy.In short, this so-called "hardhat" movement was not an expression of the universal views among the broad masses of workers, including the broad masses of white workers. Workers, including white workers, in the antiwar struggleIn fact, if you look more closely at the history of the anti war movement and antiwar sentiments -- you will find that there were significant sections of white workers that were won over to antiwar views. They were generally not the first to move -- but they were increasingly influenced as the war progressed -- including by the radical movements that were springing up among students and Black proletarians. Young working class men (including the sons of white workers) were the majority of those sent to Vietnam -- and there experienced first hand the madness and injustice of that war. Some people in this debate may insist that the war in Vietnam was in the class interests of these young white workingclass men, but they increasingly saw it differently -- and often came to understand how it was not in their interests. Young working people (including many who were white) played a significant role in the GI resistance to the war, and the movement of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Desertion from the armed forces was very heavy among young workers, with the highest desertion rate being among draftees from West Virginia -- who were overwhelmingly the sons of coal miners (who were overwhelmingly white and who also, obviously, wore "hardhats"). Meanwhile, there were significant numbers of workers who joined the antiwar movement -- some doing so as members of various trade unions, including in large contingents of workers that marched under these banners, some joining in other ways and under other banners. A note on the trade unionsUnion officials and rank-and-file workers represent different interests and different class forces. There was a complex dynamic at work here. Top union officials were often tied, politically, to forces within the ruling class itself. And their activities were often tied to divisions and struggles within the ruling class -- over policy and the conduct of the war. However even here, it is worth noting that not even the union officials were represented (fundamentally) as a group by the hardhat movement. Within days of the notorious "hardhat" attack in NYC, there was a counterdemonstration of workers, organized with the support of union officials at various levels within District 65, the Drug and Hospital workers, AFSME workers, and members of the International Union of Electrical Workers. By 1970, the war was so unpopular that Peter Brennan (the organizer of the "hardhat" attacks), speaking to a pro-government flag-waving NYC rally of conservatives and fascists types on May 20 -- even he was forced to demagogically and dishonestly say, "We are all against the war and we want to see it ended." In short, the so-called fascist "hardhat" movement existed -- it had both a social base among reactionary workers, and energetic high level support (in the media and the government and the most reactionary building trade unions). However it is extremely one-sided to portray this phenomenon as the political expression of white workers during the Vietnam war, or as the political action that most represented their fundamental interests. There was a struggle going on to win the masses of people to oppose that war -- a war that was broadly not in their interests. And there was a process by which more and more people saw the oppressive nature of the war, and even of the system -- and this included and influenced sections of white workers too. Nixon insisted that these "hardhat" fascists were representatives of the larger working class. Why would any progressive person today want to promote this lie? ----------------------------------------------------------- part ii posted below
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 12:24:12 GMT -5
Part II of AreaMan's post from 2changetheworld.info ------------------------------- A somewhat related aside:
I was reading the Onion the other day, as I often do, ("Area Man Reads Onion") and came across an interview with Merle Haggard. Haggard was the country-western singer hated by the radicals and revolutionaries of the 1960s for writing redneck anthems like "Walking on the fightingside of me" and "Okie from Muskogee." These songs were basically populist/fascist anthems that called for patriotic working people to beat up antiwar protesters.
No one, even today, is going to mistake Haggard for a progressive element. But his thoughts on his hardhat days seemed revealing to me.
Here is an excerpt from the Onion (Vol 38, #24):
Onion: How do you feel about being closely identified with the politics of "Okie from Muskogee" and "The fighting side of me" now?
Merle Haggard: Oh, I must have been an idiot. It's documentation of the uneducated that lived in America at that time and I mirror that. I always have. It's pretty easy to lie to me. They had me in a film called Wag the Dog because of "Okie from Muskogee" and my close scrutiny of the people that are being shitted. I've become self educated since I wrote that song."
|
|
|
Post by roman meal on Feb 10, 2004 12:41:08 GMT -5
if you insist on reposting enitre debates from 2ctw, then please, as a matter of honesty post both sides. It is kind of silly to spam several threads that are already available on 2ctw, you could have just posted the links as I did earlier in my post in "the white proletariat thread". Argument by atrition is not really what I would like to see happen here.
If anyone wants to see the responses to these various arguments goto 2changetheworld.info and do an author search for "aftersorrowcomesjoy" who tries to represent the MIM position.
in struggle, roman
|
|
|
Post by parole on Feb 10, 2004 12:45:55 GMT -5
the subject clearly says "Maoists on the..."
I do not see how any of Mim's replies would fit the category
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 12:53:04 GMT -5
My point was not to re-post whole threads - or debates from 2changetheworld but rather to repost informative post from other sites on the topic and create sort of an 'archive' within one thread on this issue by pulling them together here in one place.
I started with 2changetheworld. I picked out the posts that had the most 'meat' in them to me.
For example, RS2000 recently brought up the 'Hard Hats' in another thread so I also posted areaman's post that went into that in some depth.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 19:31:39 GMT -5
Kasama's post dealing with 'where does surplus value come from?'
Some points on this:
1) Where does surplus value come from? It comes from the exploitation of human labor power under capitalism. It is the difference between the wealth created by proletarians, and the tiny amounts they take home as wages. It is the amount that the capitalist takes, and then directs within society to expand the capitalists' means of making more profit.
2) MIM puts forward a fundamentally mistaken analysis of where it comes from geographically.
They suggest that most suprlus value for U.S. imperialism comes from the oppressed countries (the third world) -- and they suggest from this that there is not an exploited class WITHIN the u.s. And they charge (falsely) that workers in the u.s. ABSORB surplus value, rather than produce it.
This is wrong on every level -- as literally any geographical study of imperialist profit figures shows.
3) Imperialist capital is both deeply international, and rooted in a national market. it is rooted in that national market because (overall and generally) the vast majority of surplus value absorbed by the U.S. capitalist class is generated inside the U.S. (by proletarians there). The seocnd greatest source of profit (which is a crude equivalent of surplus value) is from inevestments the U.S. imperialists make in other imperialist countries (Canada, Germany, Japan etc.)
The third and smallest source of surplus value is from U.S. corporate investments in the third world.
4) Does this mean that the imperialist investments in the third world are not important to imperialism? Not at all.
For one thing, which the quantitative amounts of surplus value from the third world are the bulk of profits -- the RATE OF PROFIT from third world investments is much higher than from other investments (like those within the U.S. itself). Also the cheapness of labor in the third world is key to making many of the other investments profitable and realizable. So most of the auto industry may not be in Mexico, but the fact that the cars are increasingly ASSEMBLED in Mexico, means that the whole U.S. corporate process of producing cars is cheaper and more profitable.
5) Some significant sections of the working class in the u.s. are paid at roughly the value of their labor power. (I.e. this is a scientific way of saying they are exploited as proletrians by capital.) This means the workers only make enough money to drag themselves back to work and barely raise their kids to be the next exploited generation.
There are other sections that also produce far more value than they are paid -- but they are not paid only the "value of their labor power." This means they make more than the bare minimum to live. Are they still exploited? yes. Do they still produce surplus value? Yes, often huge amounts. Are they a little better off than workers elsewhere in the world? Sure. Do they still have interests in seeing socialism come? Yes, overall the largest sections of the working class in the U.S. have a definite class interest in socialism, even if some strata in that class live better than workers in the third world.
Summation: Imperialist export of capital to the third world is crucial to modern capitalism in any ways, but it does not mean that workers WITHIN the u.s. are not exploited or do not produce surplus value.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 19:36:08 GMT -5
Kasama's post on Imperialism, 'the falling rate of profit' and the issue of finance capitalIt is the line of MIM (who started this thread) that workers in the U.S. don't produce significant surplus value, and that the main source of surplus value in the world comes from the third world. They use this false claim as a bogus "theoretical" basis for their even more important false claim: that there is no section of the working class in the U.S. that has any potential to want or lead a revolution. On ImperialismI don't agree when RAF says: "Imperialism mearly mean the expansion of one's territory." Imperialism (in Marxist analysis) is a new stage of capitalism -- it is a new concentrated form of capitalism where the economy is dominated by major monopolies and finance capital. Imperialism is another name for "monopoly capitalism" -- in marxist scientific discussion these two terms are used interchangably. It was rosa luxemburg (opposed to lenin) who defined imperialism in terms of annexation of land. Lenin explained from several sides why this was not correct (or sufficient). Today we can see even more clearly why this is true: Imperialism today (and especially U.S. imperialism) mainly operate through the forms of "neo-colonialism" -- meaning that they don't, usually or mainly, ANNEX colonial lands but rule through puppet governments that are nominally "independent." Imperialism today (and especially U.S. imperialism) does not operate mainly by "expanding their territory." They expand their domination, they expand their penetration of foreign countries, they intensify their degree of exploitation of foreign peoples -- and all of that is very imperialist! On the issue of "the falling rate of profit":This is a "tendency" not a "law". By that I mean (and marx meant) that there is a dynamic within capitalism that causes the rate of profit to decline (not linearly, or autmatically or always). There is a pull in that direction. But this tendency is off set by other tendencies. Capitalism also tends to rapidly (even explosively) expand the number of proletarians they exploit (by converting semi-feudal regions of the world to capitalist ones, by absorbing the industries and factories of their rivals, by waging world war and forcing a redivision of spheres of influence). This dynamic pressed capitalists to relentlessly and ceaselessly hunt the planet for more people to exploit and ensnare. The *tendency* of the rate of profit to decline compells the capitalists to pursue offsetting dynamics. At the same time, each victory they have in expanding their production and profit only creates a more profound basis for deeper and more global crisis. And so it goes -- capitalism staggers on, like a runner gasping for air but still covering grown. And so it will go on -- as capitalism dominated and exploits more and more of humanity -- until it is overthrown by real human beings. There is a long history of "communists" overestimating capitalism's tendency to spiral downward. Many communists thought capitalism after WW2 would plunge back into depression -- and were unprepared for the explosive growth and expansion of western capitalism (energized by the renewed concentration that the defeat of Germany and japan made possible). so lets be clear: there is only a "tendency" for the rate of profit to decline. It is revolution and real living revolutionary people that will kill capitalism -- it will neither collapse on its own nor simply hand itself (exhausted) to the masses for some easy final blow. On the issue of Finance CapitalThere is some interesting discussion in this thread about finance capital. RAF in particular has said some thought provoking things. Here are my views: There is such a thing as finance capital. Its rise is a major feature of the historic transformation of the "competitive capitalism" (of the 19th century) to the imperialist "monopoly capitalism" (of the 20th century). Lenin discussed this a century ago in his famous book "Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism." Its third chapter is (appropriately) called "Finance Capital and the Financial Oligarchy." www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch03.htmBasically this describes how the commanding heights of capitalism becomes more and more parasitically separated from the details of production. There are less and less often "steel capitalists" or "coal capitalists." The economy becomes dominated by a fusion of banking and corporate capital (called "finance capital" that focuses on the buying and selling of whole corporations -- and sees only the "bottom line" and is not even tied to the fortunes of this or that basic industry. Lenin wrote: "Finance capital, concentrated in a few hands and exercising a virtual monopoly, exacts enormous and ever-increasing profits from the floating of companies, issue of stock, state loans, etc., strengthens the domination of the financial oligarchy and levies tribute upon the whole of society for the benefit of monopolists." We are not dogmatists, of course. Just cuz lenin said there was finance capitalism a century ago, doesn't mean it exists now. However, I believe that any analysis of capitalism today will show it has only become more concentrated, more gathered up in vast corporations dominated by even more parasitic "finance capital." This trend analyzed by Lenin has intensified since he described it -- in ways that i suspect even he might not have forseen.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 19:39:02 GMT -5
Another one of Kasama's posts on these issues ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png) The rivalry of major blocs of capital not only deeply "affect the world market" -- their clash is one of the main dynamics through which the crisis of capitalism erupts. In the world today, the conflict between the various imperialisms in intensifying, but not nearly as intense yet as it has been before in history. The conflicts between France and Germany (on one hand) and the U.S. on the other are visible, but not yet openly at points of antagonism. The fundamental contradiction of capitalism is between private appropriation and socialized production. This fundamental contradiction has two forms of motion: the anarchy (divisibility) of capital producting crisis and interimperialist war on one hand, and the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie producing revolution on the other hand. These two forms of motion, clearly affect each other. For example, intensified competition and rivalry between capitalists force wages down, and intensify the contradiction between proletariat and capital. In another example, the rivalry of capital have repeatedly given rise to war, and great conjunctures marked by world war. These world wars have twice given rise to major revolutions. In other words, the intensification of the contradictions of capitalism's anarchy gives rise to an intensification of the ocntradiction between bourgeoise and proletariat. Capitalism plunges into crisis and war (repeatedly) -- in ways that arise from its basic dynamics. But its end, its demise, arise from the class contradiction of capitalism (from the other form of motion taken by the fundamental contradiction. Another way of looking at this: There are four major contradictions in the world 1) between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat 2) between the people of oppressed countries and imperialism 3) between socialist countries (when they exist) and the capitalist world 4) between major imperialist powers. All four of these contradictions are real world manifestations of the underlying fundamental contradiction of capitalism: the conflict between the private nature of ownership and the social nature of production. The first three are mainly an expression of the bourgeois/proletarian motion of that fundamental contradiction. The last one is history's most violent expression of the anarchy of capitalism and rivalry of competing capitals. I realise I am presenting this Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analysis in a compressed and rather abstract form. But we can break it down more if you want.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Feb 10, 2004 19:41:34 GMT -5
this is one of kasama's posts that gets into the actual statistics dealing with surplus value. _________________________________________________ Modern capitalism has stretched outside national borders, and major powers exploit (and divide up) the world. However this does not mean (and has never meant) that they don't exploit workers in their "home countries." And every marxist thinker and leader in the world (from Lenin to Mao to the leaders of todays movements) insist on this -- because it is an important basis of the internationalism between the workers of the world. MIM implies that U.S. workers live off of the labor of people all over the world -- and aren't exploited themselves. > It is true that because the U.S. is an imperialist nation -- its economy is more robust, more articulated and rational. The u.s. no longer has a peasantry that is being ruined by capitalism, and flooding as desperate poor into the cities (depressing wages). In the third world there are the extremes of "super exploitation" -- where the existance of semi-feudalism in the countryside allows workers to be exploited BELOW the value of their labor power. However none of this means that tens of millions of workers in the U.S. are not exploited -- (and scientifically speaking, that they are only paid around the "value of their labor power" -- meaning they barely make ends meet.) It is also not true that most of the profit the U.S. capitalists get is from outside the U.S. -- or that it is mainly from the third world. In fact the U.S. ruling class invests about 1.4 trillion overseas every year, and many many times that much domestically. If y ou analyze where it invests overseas -- most of it is in the OTHER IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES. Which just confirms that there are proletarians in those countries to exploit. (And huge amounts of theinvestment of the Japanese, German etc. imperialists is within the U.S. -- exploiting the labor of the multinational u.s. working class). The ratios of this are worth looking at briefly: This is true for the U.S. ruling class -- their investment, and the amount of "profit" extracted within the U.S. is many times more than their investment overseas. Throughout history they have brutally exploited working people within the u.s. -- using the most extreme means (like slavery) and in modern times working millions of people under intense conditions for wages that barely keep body-and-mind together. Clearly, both today and historically, this has involved the special exploitation of Black and Latino people and immigrants -- who are often held at the bottom of the working class, in castelike ways. As imperialism developed in the U.S., there were a number of parallel economic trends -- associated with the export of capital to the third world, the extraction of superprofits from there, and the ability of the U.S. imperialists to develop all kinds of operations in the U.S. that were parasitic (i.e. removed from value creation, like vast banking and speculation, advertising, etc.) International exploitation has become vital to imperialism (for many reasons) -- and expanding their share of that exploitation is a major goal of each imperialist class. However this does not mean (and has never meant) that they are not ROOTED within a national market, where the bulk of their surplus value comes from exploiting the workers there. The notion (in the current book "Empire" that international capital is now rootless and "transnational" refers to important trends and developments, but is essentially false. And, even when you look at the amount of investment and profit, the U.S. ruling class does overseas -- it is mainly concentrated in OTHER IMPERIALIST COUNTRIES not in the third world. (I.e. the exploitation of Japanese workers is very important for the U.S. bourgeoisie -- and is itself a sign of the existance of an exploited working class in Japan. And furthermore, many foreign imperialists put a huge amount of their investment capital in the U.S., to exploit the proletariat there.) If you look at the overseas investment, here are the figures: all countries: 1,381,674 million Investments in other imp countries Europe: 727,793 million Canada: 139,031 million Japan: 64,103 million total: almost a trillion dollars Investments in the third world Latin am: 269,556 million Africa: 2,063 million Middle East: 12,643 million total: almost 300 billion dollars. (Figures are taken form the Department of Commerce, Survey of Current Business from January 2003. The numbers are all for 2001, and are measured in millions of dollars. There are figures there on the INCOME from those investments too, and so on. Profit income does not correspond simply and directly to surplus value -- but the overall ratios are revealing. www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ARTICLES/2003/01January/D-Pages/0103DpgG.pdf)Side note: This does not mean that the super exploitation in the third world is not important for imperialism. Thought it just means that the bulk of surplus value in the world does not come from exploiting the workers of the third world. Exploitation in the third world is important because the RATE OF EXPLOITATION is extremely high (because of suppressed wages and other reasons) so the investments by imperialism in those regions increase their global competitiveness with their rivals. (this is a whole discussion, which i have only touched on.)
|
|
|
Post by maoista on Feb 11, 2004 8:15:19 GMT -5
Parole says: the subject clearly says "Maoists on the..." ..I do not see how any of Mim's replies would fit the category
Well, I don't see why the thread shouldn't be called rcp chauvinists on the so called american worker... but so what?
we can play this game all day.
|
|
|
Post by porole on Feb 11, 2004 12:39:47 GMT -5
I am not into playing games in rwlation to serious issues such as these, nor am I into silly back and forths. I am into digging into the issues and presenting reality as I understand it to be. It is put out, people can dsagree, and if they have disagreements, should voice them and get into WHY they disagree.
I am not here to undermine the seriousness of the discussion.
(Lets be clear, I do not want what I say here to be interpreted as a me speaking for the RCP. I hope to not see this post quoted on MIM's website, representing me as a spokesperson or representative of the RCP. I am only expressing what I understand a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist analysis to be and do not pretend to be 'representing the RCP.')
Being consistent with this the political assertion you raised was that the RCP was chauvinist. From what I understand of your line (assuming its MIMs line) is that because the RCP sees that the working class in the US is multinational, and that this includes white workers, it is somehow chauvinist.
This is wrong. In fact it is a scientific analysis of class relations in the USA. Within this working class there are superexploited sections.
Another point, and is taken from my understanding of MIMs line. MIM seems to hold that because the black nationality is a distinct nationality, its workrs represent a different working class. However, in reality, they do not represent a seperate class. Just as the Iraqi working class (or any other nations working class) is also a part of the same class. The proletariat. And black workers,white workers and all workers in the US that are held down by the same state and share the same territory and are tied to the same productive relations, represent a unified multinational contingent of the international working class.
No nationality section of the workers in the US can achieve liberation from this government without the unified effort of all sections of the working class in the US.
|
|