[Marxism] Class Struggle Now

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The exemplary WORKERS DIE series, and the following article by Louis
Uchitelle, were both published in the New York Times.  When things get
so bad for workers that they actually make it into the pages of the
capital of capitalism's major daily, then these matters should really be
discussed.  I don't mean to preach to the choir here on this list, but
as we go out to talk our central point should be reinforced: class war
is waged and it is happening now.  Read the paper.  The working class
did not start it but they are expected to give up.  The "When Workers
Die" series did not mention total casualties, only deaths.  Capitalism
kills them and gets off on it.  Workers are not only getting less, while
the rich get more, but workers are actually getting killed, really dead,
and wounded.  Should workers surrender for the sake of the economy--
which is for the sake of the country-- which should include everybody--
but if you look close it sure doesn't?  A capitalist economy benefits
only capitalism and the bourgeoisie.  A socialist economy would be good
for all.

By the way, if you ever see the by-line "Louis Uchitelle" that means
read the article.  For years he has been THE reporter on the labor beat
for the NYT.  I don't recommend his conclusions (e.g., I think the
problem in the economy is far deeper than "supply side" enthusiasm), but
the stories he delivers are usually useful.  He also goes to incisive
sources, such as Edward N. Wolff, author of  "TOP HEAVY: A Study of
Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America."  (Twentieth Century Fund
Press, 1995; Newly updated and expanded edition, New Press, 2002)  as
seen in the following:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Economic View: A Recovery for Profits, but Not for Workers

 By LOUIS UCHITELLE
New York Times, December 21, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/21/business/21view.html?ex=1073100958&ei=1&en=283551d59706a51f

THIS economic recovery is distinctly unkind to workers.

Output is clearly rising, and, normally, that would feed into both
corporate profits and labor income. But while profits have shot up as a
percentage of national income, reaching their highest level since the
mid-1960?s, labor?s share is shrinking. Not since World War II has the
distribution been so lopsided in the aftermath of a recession.

Profits, it turns out, never stopped rising as a share of national
income all through the 2001 recession and the months afterward of weak
economic growth. That did not change even as the recovery kicked in
strongly last summer and hiring resumed. New data from the Bureau of
Economic Analysis erases all doubt on this point.

The reasons for labor?s poor showing are not hard to spot. The
employment rolls are still smaller, by 2.4 million jobs, than they were
at the recession?s start in March 2001. Those who are employed are also
feeling the squeeze, particularly the 85 million people who hold office
or factory jobs below the rank of supervisor or manager. Their average
hourly wage, $15.46, is up only 3 cents since July, according to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. That wage is rising at an annual rate of
less than 2 percent, barely enough to keep up with inflation, mild as it
now is.

?We have never seen in the 40 years that we have this hourly wage
survey, wage growth that has been this slow,?? said Dean Baker, an
economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

That is unfortunate. Workers, after all, are also the nation?s
consumers. We are counting on their spending to turn the recovery into a
first-class expansion. They must do that against the dead weight of
reluctant hiring and miserly raises. The workers themselves are helpless
to change this. For a generation, we have permitted labor?s bargaining
power to deteriorate. Successive administrations - Republican and
Democratic - have abetted the deterioration. Only in vigorous booms,
like that of the late 1990?s, have workers been in enough demand to give
them bargaining power.

The productivity saga highlights the deterioration. From the end of
World War II until the late 1960?s, productivity rose at a handsome
pace. As the output of goods and services increased for each hour
worked, the additional revenue flowed steadily into corporate profits
and labor income. Then, as the productivity growth rate slowed, profits
took the first hit, falling as low as 25 percent of total national
income in the early 70?s, according to a net profit measure constructed
from government data by Edward N. Wolff, a New York University
economist. His measure includes not only standard net income, but also
profit from self-employment, rent and interest.

While profits? share of national income declined, labor?s share held up.
Its bargaining power in the 1970?s, and even into the 80?s, was still
strong enough to sustain wage gains. The alternative - outsourcing
abroad or substituting foreign merchandise for domestic products - was
just beginning to materialize. We all know how weak labor soon became.
Globalization, deregulation, declining union membership, a stagnant
minimum wage and incessant layoffs took their toll. And as labor
weakened, the profit share of national income recovered.

THE consequences are hitting home. When the productivity growth rate
revived in the mid-1990?s and accelerated in recent years, many
forecasters thought that the revenue from rising output per worker would
again be channeled to labor as well as to profits. But the productivity
improvement came in a strange way. Rather than increasing output per
worker, many companies maintained existing output and raised the
productivity growth rate by getting rid of workers. Labor had grown too
weak to prevent many companies from pocketing virtually all the gains
from productivity - or, as Mr. Wolff put it, ?Labor is a forgotten part
of this economy.??

His measure shows that pretax profits skyrocketed in the third quarter,
to nearly 30 percent of national income, at an annual rate, from 27
percent in the first quarter of 2001. And this despite the rising costs
of health insurance, pensions and exercised stock options, all counted
as labor income.

The gorging on profits strains the recovery. Forecasters count on
consumer spending to keep the expansion going. So far, consumers have
performed admirably, drawing on mortgage refinancing, tax rebates and
heavy borrowing at low interest rates to pay their bills. Once these
resources run out - and they are running out - rising labor income must
fill the gap.

Unless the supply-siders are right. They hold to the view that robust
business spending on capital goods can lead the way, generating consumer
spending in its wake. This recovery, more than others in recent decades,
is testing that doubtful thesis.



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism