Marxism in rich countries

["Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sketchy notes on Marxism in the rich countries.

The divorce between revolutionary Marxism (as a method and worldview) and
the labor movement in the rich capitalist countries has deep social roots.
We should not pretend, as some groups in the environmentalist movement seem
to think, that by changing definitions and methods of measurement, we can
get around the actual problems.  However, theoretical confusion has also
been a contributing factor in the divorce between Marxism and actual class
struggle.  To this extent, looking at things from other angles is helpful.

In the upswing years of the 2nd International, industrial ('blue-collar')
proletarian workers were the majority of the adult-and-able population in
Western Europe, or were thought to be in the way of becoming the majority.
But, then, the improvement in the real incomes and standard of living of a
large number of European workers as well as the growth of the 'white-collar'
segment, two trends that became noticeable in the late 19th century and
early 20th century, were generally perceived by Marxists as tendencies
contrary to the predictions of the doctrine.

On the one hand, there was the notion that human emancipation could only be
completed by a class of direct producers who were absolutely property-less,
exploited, and alienated from their activity and from social life in modern
societies.  During their youth, Marx and Engels seemed to have believed that
the development of capitalism was necessarily accompanied by a growing
impoverishment of the working class.  Although, in his mature works, Marx
seems to have abandoned such a view, somehow, the notion of a growing class
of absolutely alienated property-less producers and the tendency towards the
impoverishment of workers under capitalism were expected to go together.

On the other hand, throughout his active intellectual life, Marx declared
the existence of a certain level of development of the productive forces --
i.e., the existence of a highly advanced and productive working class -- as
an 'absolute' premise for the construction of communism (socialism was then
the first stage of communism).  The idea was that, by its own inherent
tendencies, capitalist production contributed to generate, form, organize,
and discipline the advanced collective producer.  It was not fatalistic (in
the sense that workers were inevitably to become Marxists); but it was
historically necessary (in the sense that, systematically, capitalist
production allowed and enabled workers to organize and struggle collectively
against capitalism).

The tendencies observed in the late 19th century and early 20th century were
disturbing to Marxists because they seemed to go against these expectations.
 For one, the evolution of the advanced collective producer under
capitalism was not always or in most cases accompanied by their
impoverishment.  Instead, as a rule, as capitalist production increased,
absolute poverty seemed to decline.  In part, at least, this was the direct
result of the class struggle waged by workers and assisted and enlightened
by the Marxists themselves.

While absolute poverty declined in the rich capitalist countries and a
significant number of 'white-collar' workers emerged, absolute poverty still
remained the rule in countries where capitalist production was incipient or
inexistent.  A direct contributor to the impoverishment of the absolute
majority of the population in these countries was colonial exploitation,
plunder, and abuse.  These practices not only increased absolute poverty but
also destroyed basic conditions for the development of capitalist
production.

In this context, the focus of revolutionary Marxism shifted to Russia and,
then, the 'Third World'.  The communist struggle was virtually abandoned in
the rich countries.  Thus, more or less rapidly, the disconnection between
revolutionary Marxism and class struggle in the rich capitalist societies
reinforced itself.

I have argued in other postings against the corollary of Lenin's theory of
imperialism, i.e., that monopolistic super-profits allow capitalists in the
rich countries to bribe a sector of the working class and foster opportunism
and reformism.  IMO, the evidence supports the hypothesis that the level and
growth rate in the real incomes and living conditions of the working class
in the rich capitalist countries is MOSTLY a result of the level and growth
rate of their productivity.  [IMO, Lenin referred only to the top layer of
the working class, the workers' aristocracy, but it has become common to
implicitly assume that this reaches a great deal of the labor force in rich
capitalist societies.]  Monopolistic super-profits and super-exploitation
don't seem sufficiently significant to account for the improvement in the
living conditions of workers in the rich capitalist societies.

But, whatever our judgment of Lenin's theory of imperialism is, if we are to
remain in the tradition of scientific socialism and avoid utopianism or
anarchism, it is indispensable to re-think seriously the prospects of
revolutionary Marxism and the communist struggle in the rich capitalist
countries.  There's only so much that we can clarify by scrutinizing the
works by Marx, Engels, and Lenin.  Most likely, we need to solve the riddles
by ourselves.

To the extent that theoretical confusion contributed to the disconnection
between Marxism and workers' movement, part of the problem comes from the
misidentification of the historical agent of change in the rich capitalist
societies.  IMO, this confusion has been reinforced by the vested interests
different branches of bureaucratic Marxism have in defending the
anti-imperialist strategy.

In the Stalinist version of Marxism, the leading historical agent was
supposed to be the working class directly connected to 'material
production'.  But what's 'material production'?   Accustomed to looking at
things from the traditional perspective, we are inclined to relate this to
the idea of the 'industrial' working class (the sector of the working class
engaged in productive activities in the heavily mechanized industries) as
the main revolutionary force.

Insofar as this view is attributed to Marx, it is mistaken.  Gerald Cohen
(Marx's Theory of History) has clarified that the term 'material' production
or reproduction is to be paired with his notion of 'social' production or
reproduction.  'Material' production is not to be contrasted with 'ideal'
production.  In brief, 'material' production refers to the technical aspect
of production and 'social' production to the social relations in which it
takes place.

In this same sense, Marx referred to 'material' productive forces.  That is,
as opposed to the 'social' relations of production.  In fact, the productive
forces were always the productive forces of LABOR.  The productive force
was, first and foremost, LABOR POWER.  Marx also alluded to means of
production (the 'objective conditions of production') as part of the
productive forces, but to the extent that means of production are products,
they are nothing but materialized LABOR.

So, only to the extent that 'virgin' natural resources are means of
production, the productive forces were NOT living human abilities or
products of previous labor that living human abilities turned productive.
But 'virgin' natural resources are such only ephemerally.  As soon as they
are discovered, included in the calculation of humans engaged in production,
they start to become materialized labor.

If productive forces are labor power, then they prominently include (as the
characteristically human attribute of labor) human intelligence, foresight,
imagination, creativity, and emotional engagement.  Productive forces are
'material' in the sense that they represent our power over nature, but they
are not 'material' in a sense opposed to 'ideal'.  The productive force of
labor is conspicuously IDEAL.  For instance, scientific knowledge (to the
extent that it is applied or applicable to direct production) is a
productive force.  Knowledge is IDEAS.  Etc.

This issue is not unrelated to the issue of 'productive' labor.  It seems
clear that, for Marx, productive labor in general was identical to the labor
spent in the production of use values.  However, under commodity production,
productive labor was not only labor that produced use-values but also labor
that produced values.  So, productive labor under commodity production is
value-producing labor.  And under capitalist production, productive labor is
not only labor that produces use values and values, but also labor that
produces surplus value.  Under capitalism, productive labor is surplus-value
producing labor.

The issue then hinges on what is meant by the production of 'use values'.
Anwar Shaikh (Measuring the Wealth of Nations) has shown that use values are
'useful effects' in general.  Therefore, they should not be confused with
physically tangible objects.  A host of productive activities do not yield
products that are tangible objects (haircuts, transportation, genetic data,
etc.) because the product does not exist in tangible form or its production
coincides with the act of consumption.  Excluding labor spent under
sub-standard technical conditions and therefore wasted, non-productive labor
under capitalism is labor spent in (1) the change of forms (pushing
commodity exchange) and (2) social and political control (in the workplace
or outside).  Supervisory labor that is technically required under
capitalist production is productive labor in this sense.

While a lot of hair-splitting can be done here, the thing is that when we
take this into consideration, the collective producer (regardless of the
color of their collars) remains an absolute majority of the adult-and-able
population in rich capitalist societies.  Of course, there are further
distinctions that should be made.  But, with this change in perspective, the
rift between revolutionary Marxism and the workers' movement in rich
capitalist societies does not appear insurmountable.

First, the collective producer includes all producers, direct and indirect.
Direct producers are all those directly involved in the production of
use-values.  Mostly wage workers.  Non-direct producers are those in charge
of coordinating or managing the technical aspects of production.  Their work
consists of ensuring the continuity and smooth integration of the higher
(technical) momenta in the production of use values.  Entrepreneurs, to the
extent that they innovate, organize, and re-organize the technical aspects
of production are members of the collective producer.

The crucial distinction here is the one, emphasized by Marx (Capital, vol.
3), between capitalists as organizers or managers of the technical aspect of
production and capitalists as mere wealth owners (capitalists proper).
Capitalists proper are people whose main source income in a capitalist
society is wealth holding. [The operationalization of abstract concepts is
always a problem.  But even if many possible operational measures can be
thought out, the conceptual distinctions are clear enough.]

Second, IMO, the working class or the collective worker should include all
direct producers AND all other wage workers (i.e., wage workers engaged in
non-productive activities).   The working class also includes the portion of
the unemployed who have not been out of work for so long as to be
de-classed.  The non-direct producers (technical managers, entrepreneurs,
etc.) are to be excluded because their social position is such that they are
either capitalists themselves or respond more directly to the interests of
the capitalists.  The working class is, therefore, exploited by the
capitalists insofar as they produce surplus value that capitalists
appropriate.  The fundamental antagonism of interests remains.

Third, proletarians are members of the working class whose living and
working conditions detach them, alienate them, and tend to drive them
towards a frontal fight against capitalist production.  Impoverishment is an
ingredient in the constitution of the proletariat; but (IMO) not necessarily
absolute impoverishment.  Relative impoverishment, i.e., growing social
inequality (as Marx discussed it in Wage-Labor and Capital, and a trend
manifest in rich capitalist societies) is just as insufferable.  In
accordance with this view, most workers in the rich capitalist societies are
proletarians.

Marxists who perceive the working class in the rich capitalist countries as
spoiled by higher real incomes, and better working and living conditions,
overestimate the ability of wealth to satisfy human needs, particularly to
please and pacify the human condition of people who are systematically
engaged in shaping up the world with their hands and minds.  IMO, it is
inherent to Marxism the belief that our outlook stems not so much from our
consumption activities as it does from our productive activities, from our
engagement as workers.  If we believe that the acquisition and consumption
of modest amounts of wealth render workers submissive, vain, and powerless,
then we have abandoned the spirit of Marxism.  [The counterpart of this is
the idealization of poverty as a revolutionary engine, the denial of its
demoralizing effects.]

I have alluded in another posting to Lenin's frank assessment of the
historical, revolutionary role of urban proletarians in Russia, in spite of
its smallness, which contrasted with a large peasantry.  The specific weight
of proletarians in the Russian society depended crucially on the position
they occupied in the economic structure.  Their ability to transform society
(not only to paralyze and dislocate but mainly to resist and build) was a
potency invested on them by their role in social production.

Analogously, in rich capitalist societies nowadays, the educated and highly
skilled segments of the working class occupied in dynamic and strategic
areas of social production are to be regarded as the potential leaders of
the social revolutions to come.  Marxists have an obligation to investigate
their living and working conditions, their interests and view of the world,
and engage with them.  The challenge is to do it in a way that is consistent
with workers' solidarity, the support of the most vulnerable and
impoverished sectors of the working class, and the assistance to the direct
producers in the poorer societies.

An undeniable practical problem is that highly educated workers are 'harder'
to persuade and organize.   This is often rationalized as 'individualistic'
tendencies among educated workers.  It doesn't help that Marxism has been
perceived in the rich capitalist countries as a rigid, marginal ideology
pertaining to 'blue-collar' workers to the exclusion of others.  But however
challenging the task, it is the responsibility of Marxists to struggle for
the leadership of the working class in the rich countries.  Therefore, they
must engage seriously in the task of conquering the minds and hearts of
these sectors of the working class for communism... or wither away until new
generations reinvent the wheel.

For good or ill, the further advance of Marxism in the rich capitalist world
is to be measured by a triple standard: (1) How effective they become in
attracting educated workers in the dynamic sectors of the economy in the
rich capitalist countries, (2) how effective they become in protecting and
defending the rights, living and working conditions of impoverished and
vulnerable workers in the traditional sectors of the economy and poor direct
producers in the 'Third World', and (3) how effective they become in
engaging in a revolutionary political struggle in the rich capitalist
countries.

It's a path set with tensions and contradictions, but the anti-imperialist
strategy can only bring more insignificance and irrelevance to revolutionary
Marxism as a method and worldview.  Anti-imperialism is a democratic
ingredient in the class struggle of workers in the whole world, it is in
itself an important struggle, but it cannot be the core of the strategy
against capitalism.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.