Re: Students (to Jose)

[Philip L Ferguson <PLF13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jose wrote:

> It seems to me that your post is based on a LaSallean-type notion that
>the workers should receive the undiminished value produced by their labor.
>M&E explain in the critique of the Gotha Program, what is wrong with this
>idea in general.

Since I said the surplus would be even bigger in a socialist society, I
clearly do NOT believe that workers shouyld receive the undiminished value
rpoduced by their labour.

You actually couldn't have a society - any kind of society, never mind a
socialist one - if this happened!


>I suspect the big majority of
>people going to College in New Zealand come from relative privileged layers
>of the working people, NOT from the bourgeoisie.

I never said most of them come from the bourgeoisie.

Most of them come from the middle class, but you seem to share Carroll's
idea that this class does not exist.


>So from that side of things, what the students are demanding is
>perfectly okay by me.

Since I clearly stated that I am in favour all all education and training
being free, I am clearly NOT opposed to their demand.  In fact, their
demand at present is extremely limited - it is just no free rises.

What I am doing, and which you appear to be entirely hostile to, is
challeniging them to think more critically about where the finance for
their education comes from and what they are going to give back to the
working class in return.

Your position amounts to the most narrow form of economist reformism
rpecisely because you simply want to accept the protests as they exist - ie
spontaneous consciousness - rather than introduce anything revolutionary
into the discussion with students.

So, following your idea, all Marxists would do is tag along behind, or be
the 'best builders', the students will then get their degrees, graduate, be
blissfully unaware of any obligations to the working class, and go off into
careers helping prop up capitalism.  Basically this is what happened with
radical students in the last few decades.  Your recipe is one that will
just continue the cycle.

> I seriously and truly believe that you've somehow contracted a really
>virulent case of sectarianism. Your INSTINCTIVE reaction when you saw the
>mass movement was to look for reasons it should NOT be supported. That led
>you to this very vulgar, economist idea that somehow the students are trying
>to partake of the exploitation of the working class or even increase it.

Actually, having been involved in a great many student protests myself, I
find this just plain silly.  Also the very first occupation here, back in
1993, was organised and led by people from the campus milieu 'revolution'
evolved out of.  One ofmits main leaders was one of our editorial
collective members.

The difference is that we don't just *do*, we also *critically reflect*.
After having been involved in a large range of protests one of the things I
have reflected on is why the left is so weak and in many ways quite
pathetic.  Unfortunately, some people would rather not reflect critically
at all on mass movements and would rather draw *no conclusions*, therefore
condemning themselves, and the next generation of protest, to the same
eventual containment and demoralisation as the last several generations.




> I think you really need to read and re-read Lenin's pamphlet on
>ultraleftism, and a look at Marx's Value Price and Profit might prove useful
too.

In the same comradely spirit, might I suggest you re-read 'What is to be
Done?'
We can swap notes on the two texts!

You seem not to understand that students *are beneficiaries* of the
exploitation of the working class - since it is surplus-value which
underwrites their education.  Radical students in their early 20s
understood this is the 1960s student protest era, but it seems to be lost
today.  Perhaps it is you who should re-read Marx's economic work.  Never
mind, 'Value, Price and Profit'.  I think you need a full dose of
'Capital', vols 1-3 and all of 'Theories of Surplus-Value'.

Cheers,
Phil