Re: [Marxism] Forwarded from Anthony (reply to Julio Huato)/bribery and Lenin

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 6/10/2004 8:02:02 PM Central Standard Time,
suarsos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

>Though I will say in passing that if anyone thinks black workers in Detroit
are "privileged" I don't see how they can hope for revolution in the US.  . .
. Does anyone think the entrenched reformism of the Indonesian working class
is due to "privilege"? Wages are some of the lowest in Asia. Students, however,
are indeed (relatively) privileged compared to workers -- but it is they who
have been the most politically active.

I continue to vote for bourgeois hegemony rather than material privilege as
the explanation for reformism.<

Comment

The hope for revolution is firmly rooted in the "advance of industry," which
is the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie. This does not deny the intractable
social position of the black workers within the working class North and South or
the material composition of the proletariat.

The black workers of the Midwest and particularly Detroit  . . . are like
workers everywhere  . . . extremely stratified. The ones in trade unions as a
general rule, have higher wages and standard of living than those outside trade
unions.

Almost ever sector of Marxism has described reformism from the standpoint of
the material privileges of the workers in say America . . . since World War 2
- and even before this. This was certainly my thinking throughout the 1970s
and 1980s, although the concept of the labor aristocracy was understood to not
refer to the higher paid workers, but rather the trade union leaders . . .
particularly in Detroit and the Midwest. There are thousands of black trade 
union
leaders and it has not been that long ago that the Coalition of Black Trade
Unionist held its annual Memorial Day Convention - in Atlanta.

In my estimate the concept of the labor aristocracy would also embrace an
enormous section of the black intellectual elite for instance and their
Anglo-American counterparts, that labors in that "space" Lenin identified as an
important social prop of imperialism. The essence of this strata does not mean 
all of
them are "imperial scoundrels" but rather indicates they exist as a social
strata.

The subjective dimensions of reformism are very real. No one waits until
"objective conditions mature" to fight in defense of ones family and life 
itself.
Nevertheless, I think all of us have more than less been historically wrong on
this question of reformism. Part of this is a collective failure to
understand the meaning of the modern proletariat as the lowest stratum of 
society. It
is a historical error because the last stage in the boundary of the industrial
system governed how we understood the meaning of the word "proletariat."

In Detroit everyone understood that the unionized workers were not the lowest
stratum of the working class. Yet, this unionized sector was in motion and
due to its very nature of being organized could articulate a concerted voice.
The industrial workers and all the industrial classes are and were bounded to
capital in motion and this described the framework and meaning of reform.

The black workers of Detroit - the better paid strata is most certainly in a
position of privilege in relationship to the proletariat - black, white,
Mexican, etc, and in an absolute sense compared to the workers throughout the
Southern region and the black belt in particular. These same black workers are 
less
privileged in comparison to their white counterparts.

Students as opposed to young people is a somewhat different question. Young
people are stratified and some are students or is it college students?


Melvin P.

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