Re: Bourgeoisified workers

[Rubyg580@xxxxxxx]

I'm putting these two things together because I think the passages
that Hugh quotes speak to the errors in MIM's analysis of white
workers in the U.S. (my comments at the end)

n a message dated 96-08-04 02:37:09 EDT, Paul writes:

<<<I find MIM's analysis of this and other topics very interesting, and
 their analysis seems to agree with the world I observe. The wealthier
 portion of the  working class in the imperialist nations seems to
 consistently ally itself with imperialism against the more impoverished
 sections of the working class in their nations and throughout the world.
 Most of world's people do not see the wealthier workers of the US as their
 real or potential allies. Perhaps these political facts have a basis in
 concrete economic realities.

 On the other hand, I don't know much about economics or Marxist theory, so
 I may be at fault at here.

 Certainly, I can understand why we would prefer things to be otherwise.
 Maybe someone can explain to me why MIM's idea is flawed not just in its
 details, but is plainly false - "lunacy" as Carrol Cox writes.

 Paul>>>

In a message dated 96-08-04 08:24:09 EDT, Hugh quotes:

<< June 17, 1879, Engels to Bernstein in Zurich.

         For a number of years past the English working-class
movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of
strikes for higher wages and shorter hours, not, however, as
an expedient or means of propaganda and organization but
as the ultimate aim. [Written two decades before What
         Is To Be Done?] The Trades Unions even bar all political
action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban
participation in any general activity of the working class as a
class. The workers are  divided politically into Conservatives
and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield)
ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry. One can
speak here of a labour movement only in so far as strikes take
place here which, whether they are won or not, do not get the
movement one step further. [...] No attempt should be made
to conceal the fact that at present no real labour movement in
the Continental sense exists here, and I therefore believe you
will not lose much if for the time being you do not receive any
reports on the doings of the Trades Unions here.

 August 30, 1883, Engels to Bebel in Leipzig.

          Do not on any account let yourself be bamboozled into
thinking there is a real proletarian movement going on here. [...]
And -- apart from the unexpected -- a really general workers'
movement will come into existence here only when the workers
feel that England's world monopoly is broken. Participation in
the domination of the world market was and is the economic
basis of the political nullity of the English workers.

 October 24, 1891, Engels to Sorge in Hoboken, emphasis in original.

         ... I can readily believe that the movement in the USA is
again at a low ebb. Everything over there is liable to big ups and
downs. [...] The living standard of the native American [NB *not*
Native American!![HR] worker is moreover considerably higher
than even that of the English worker, and this alone is sufficient
to relegate him to a back seat for some time. Besides there is
the competition of the emigrants and a few other reasons. *When*
the time is ripe, things will move there with enormous speed and
energy, but it may take a little while till that point is reached.
Miracles don't happen anywhere. Add to this moreover the
unfortunate business with the supercilious Germans who
want simultaneously to play the part of schoolmaster and
commander thus making it difficult for the natives to learn
>from them even the good things. ...

 April 9, 1870, Marx to Meyer and Vogt (not Bonaparte's police spy!),
 emphasis in original.

         And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial
centre in England now possesses a working class *divided* into
two *hostile* camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians.
The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor
who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he
feels himself a member of the *ruling* nation and so turns himself
into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists of his country *against
Ireland*, thus strengthening their domination *over himself*. He
cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the
Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that
of the 'poor whites'  to the 'niggers' in the former slave states of
the USA. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own
money. He sees in the English worker at once the accomplice
and the stupid tool of the *English rule in Ireland*.
         This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified
by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short by all the
means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This *antagonism*
is the *secret of the impotence of the English working class*,
despite its organization.
         It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains
its power. And that class is fully aware of it.>>>>

It's a matter of understanding the difference between thinking
and being; between an idealist and a materialist understanding
of the world.  Bourgeoisified workers have a material basis for
thinking that they have interests incommon with the imperialists.
It is because of imperialist exploitation of the oppressed
countries that the imperialists are able to compensate their
section of the working class at a level above the value of their
labor power.

 But the ability of the imperialists to do that is limited.  It is
limited by the ability of the imperialists to defend their super-
exploitation from the revolutionary struggles of the oppressed
countries.  It's limited by the ability of the imperialists to fight
the overall falling rate of profit as the need for more and more
sophisticated production equipment keeps rising.

Right now there are many workers in all the imperialist
countries who have been rudely "de-bourgeoisified" in recent
years as we see rampant corporate downsizing, NAFTA type
agreements that facilitate exploitation of oppressed countries,
etc.

There's also the fact that alongside of the bourgeoisified
workers in any imperialis country there is also a true proletariat.
And while the bourgeoisified section of the working class is
usually made up of persons from the dominant nationality, the
proletariat in any country is usually multi-national, and includes
members ofthe dominant nationality as well as those from
oppressed nationalities.

The thing is, the class interests of even the most bourgeoisified
sections of the workers are based on their relationship to the
means of production, NOT on their consciousness or lack of it.
Workers DO NOT own or control the means of production, no
matter how well they are compensated for their work; no matter
how patriotic they may be for "their" imperialist homeland.

You will notice that Marx says the English working class is
divided into two hostile "camps", not into two separate classes,
as MIM says.  And he points out that the English worker, by
helping the English Bourgeoisie oppress the Irish worker, "turns
himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists of his country
*against Ireland*, thus strengthening their domination *over himself*."

 Nowhere do either Marx or Engels call the working class of
England or the USA "enemies" of the revolution, or even enemies
of the workers of the oppressend nations.  Rather they see them
as pawns, played by the imperialists against their own real class
interests.  MIM's line, to me is just an excuse to not engage in
the difficult work of organizing within the working class itself.

Gina /Detriot




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---