[Marxism] Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Julio Huato)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Reply to Julio Huato (Re: [Marxism] Forwarded from Anthony in Colombia 
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 17:17:12 -0400)

Julio wrote that he had "never seen convincing evidence" that the 
problem with the US working class is "imperialist privilege embedded 
from birth" (Which I had argued.) He asked,

"Can you suggest a mechanism by which "US imperialists" would go "out of 
their way to maintain the privileges" of U.S. workers? By "mechanism" I 
mean, how specifically could capitalist competition (in the way it 
imposes itself on the individual capitalists and then aggregates) lead 
to this outcome?

The simple answer to your question is: the state. The mechanism which 
the imperialists use, and which all ruling classes everywhere have 
always used, to redistribute surplus value against the 'laws of the 
market' (capitalist competition) is the state.

The specific ways that mechanism was used for this purpose (and are 
still being used for this purpose although this has been diminishing and 
changing in the last decades) in the USA are complicated, but fall into 
several broad categories.

Historically the first is based on a kind of ‘primitive accumulation’ 
that had wide ranging implications for all economic categories.

1.	Land policy: confiscation and distribution of land and rents – 
including especially the Homestead Act.

2.      Free Universal Public education, based on land policy.

The second phase historically is related to the transition from the 
primitive accumulation of land and rents to modern capitalist 
imperialism. The key elements here are

1.      The progressive income tax.

2.      State and local property taxes.

Both of which redistribute income and wealth.

The third phase historically is the cold war social compact. It includes

1.      All New Deal labor and social legislation.

2.	The creation of a gigantic military sector of the economy (defense 
industry) with a subsidized sector of workers receiving higher than 
'market' wages. Military production broadly understood included a lot, 
including the national highway system and most scientific research.

3.	The creation of a huge government bureaucracy receiving higher than 
market wages.

4.      The upward pressure on all wages of all workers created by 2 and 3.

Julio wrote, "It's hard for me to envision. A is a capitalist and tries 
to bribe his workers to maintain their privileges with respect to the 
workers abroad. So A dutifully takes a portion of its profits 
(imperialist super-profits, if you wish) and adds them to the workers' 
pay to bribe them (or to the union leadership's pay only)...

My suggestion is, study what really happened, and is happening, rather 
than Robinson Crusoe economics. Then you won't need to envision, you 
will see it plane as day.

Julio wrote, "To show this, you'd have to translate these wages into PPP 
(purchasing power parity) units, and control at least for productivity 
(which is likely to be significantly higher in the U.S. because they use 
more machines per worker and workers may have more experience) and the 
U.S. long-run inflated currency position, seigniorage advantages, etc. 
I'd be willing to bet that the remaining differences can be explained by 
class struggle factors (unemployment rates, unionization, and history of 
class battles). The pool of unskilled workers in Mexico and China is 
huge enough to put pressure on the wages of auto workers. So 
"imperialist privilege" would not be as big a deal as it seems at first 
sight."

No Julio, I don't have to do any of that to show privilege. I just need 
to walk into a working class neighborhood in Bogotá, and compare it to 
the neighborhood of a similar group of workers in Chicago. My definition 
of privilege is simpler, and less complicated than yours. If two people 
do the same thing, but one gets more because of who they are, and where 
they live, than someone else does because of who they are and where they 
live, the first person is privileged.

This is all the is required to convince most of the people in the world 
that the US – and its working class - is privileged.

However, there is a small minority that doesn't see the obvious.

The analysis you suggest would, however, be interesting. You would 
probably find out that your are wrong on several points. Take machines 
per worker. This is rapidly rising all over the world, but whereas a 
country like China or Colombia doesn't have the problem of all those old 
inefficient machines clogging up the factories, the USA does. In fact, 
the USA has this problem worse than any other country. Labor 
productivity is rising so fast in China that measuring it is a problem. 
However, wages are not rising so fast.

I will leave the issues of U.S. long-run inflated currency position, 
seigniorage advantages, etc. to others for now, except to note that a 
serious analysis will probably show that the exceptional position of the 
US dollar in the world economy is a key mechanism for transfer of wealth 
and income into the USA from the rest of the world.

Class struggle is a key issue. The working class in the United states 
has been – at several different moments – extremely militant and 
combative. But, the ruling class was able to compromise, because it 
could expand. If you look at each moment of intense class struggle in 
the USA historically, you will find that it was followed immediately by 
a new social compromise and a new phase of imperialist expansion.

The 1840’s struggles by the annexation of half of Mexico.

The 1870’s struggles by the end of the frontier and the Spanish American 
War (and annexation economically and or politically of Puerto Rico, the 
Philippines, Cuba, etc.)

The struggles of the first decades of the 20th century by WWI.

The struggles of the 1930’s by WWII. (After which the USA militarily 
occupied Japan and Europe and economically deeply penetrated their 
economies.

Julio, let me say one personal note to you. Don’t use your 
sophistication to brow beat me or anyone else on this list. That 
unfortunate bullshit has already made many enemies for you and your 
ideas. If you really, in your heart, are on the side of the working 
class and the oppressed, cut out the intellectualism – the false 
intellectuality of your discourse if you like - and get down to brass 
tacks. In other words, cut out the bullshit.

What I mean concretely is this. If you offer a challenge to someone on a 
complex issue, give your own answer and analysis first. This is a sign 
of goodwill. If you don’t do this, it is a sign of bad faith, 
intellectual browbeating, the bourgeois professor putting the ignorant 
worker in their place.

That kind of relation has no place among communists.

All the best, Anthony


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