Re: [Marxism] The absence of real forces [was: The low point]

["Sayan Bhattacharyya" <ok.president+marxmail@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 8/4/07, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> At the risk of beating this issue to death, the primary agents of change are
> almost never found at the lowest level of society - in this case, households
> where the worker(s) earn an average $16,800.

By "primary agents of change", what kind of change are you referring to?

> The wild applause of
> conservatives like David Brooks and Ron Haskins at the modest increase in
> the average wage at the poverty level - bought, incidentally, at the expense
> of Clinton's welfare cuts - only draws attention to how obscenely inadequate
> it is for a family with children. For the life of me, I can't understand why
> Sayan persists in joining the celebration.

I didn't "join in the celebration" -- did I?  I merely provided the
article, without any editoralising about it. There was a discussion
happening between Bustelo on one side, and others on another side.
Joaquin Bustelo was arguing that low-income American workers don't
become a class-for-themselves because they have a good reason not to:
their standard of living is, in fact, increasing. Mark Lause, I think,
contested that. I then furnished these two articles to interject what
appeared to be some real data into the debate.

Now it may be that the data is wrong or falsified. However, that would
need to be shown.

If the data is correct, then it seems to give credence to Joaquin's theory.

> Any real change would necessarily have to be based on and led by the
> industrial, clerical, retail, and technical workers and college-educated
> professional employees occupying the second, third, and fourth quintiles.

Again, I'm confused as to what you mean by "any real change". What
kind of change are you speaking of?


> Focusing on the ostensible progress of the poorest Americans is clearly
> designed to draw attention away from the deteriorating conditions of the
> mass of the US working class.

But socialist revolutions are usually made (according to classical
Marxism, anyway) by the  proletarian workers, not by the relatively
more well-off workers. No? Relatively more well-off workers are going
to be less likely to do anything that upsets the status quo, than
proletarian workers.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism